• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Contact Us
  • Sponsor An Email
  • Post A Job
  • Merger & Acquisition Services

Agency Checklists

Massachusetts Insurance News & Job Opportunities

You are here: Home / Insurance Law | Massachusetts / MA Insurance Law | Insurance Coverage Cases / Special Commission Urges A State Captive Insurer To Solve $350 Million Crumbling Foundation Problem

Special Commission Urges A State Captive Insurer To Solve $350 Million Crumbling Foundation Problem

February 11, 2020 by Owen Gallagher

An eleven-person commission set up to study the emerging problem in Central Massachusetts of homes whose foundations are crumbling because of pyrrhotite contamination has recommended the state set up a captive insurer to deal with the estimated $350 million costs for affected homeowners to replace their failing foundations.

A special commission formed by 2018 law to survey pyrrhotite foundation problem

Cover of the final report of the special commsiion to study the impact of crumbling pyrrhotite concrete foundation

The creation of the commission resulted from major problems in Connecticut arising from concrete containing pyrrhotite having been quarried and delivered for residential and commercial foundations from the JJ Mottes Concrete Company in Connecticut.  This company operated a quarry providing aggregate for pouring concrete foundations. The delivery area for this company encompassed many towns in Central Massachusetts. See Agency Checklists’ article of December 18, 2018, “Will Massachusetts Insurers Be Next To Deal With Crumbling Foundation Claims?

Over fifteen to twenty years, pyrrhotite can react with the seepage of water and oxygen by expanding. For house foundations with this concrete, cracks develop that eventually could lead to the failure of the foundation.

Once the pyrrhotite cracking begins, homeowners face the problem of replacing the foundation at costs that can average $250,000. One of the two homeowner members of the commission advised that he had paid $325,000 to replace his 4900 square foot home’s crumbling foundation. The other homeowner member of the commission stated that he had received a quote for the removal and replacement of the crumbling foundation in his 2,106 square foot home of $225,400.

The commission recommends a law to create a captive insurer to deal with pyrrhotite foundation remediation costs

The special commission’s major recommendation called for the Massachusetts Legislature to:

  1. Enable a Captive Insurance Company to conduct business in Massachusetts for the purpose of overseeing the evaluation, repair, replacement, and reimbursement of qualified residential crumbling foundations.
  2. Create a Crumbling Foundations Assistance Fund. Contributions to the Fund shall be used exclusively for the repair and replacement of qualified residential foundations. The Fund shall be administered by a Captive Insurance Company.

The commission also called for the Legislature to ban all concrete originating from quarries containing pyrrhotite and to require any the owner of any home in Massachusetts located within 30 miles of Becker’s Quarry in Wellington, Connecticut with a foundation poured between 1983 and 2015 to disclose to any buyer:

  • Any testing, inspection, or repairs performed on the foundation; and
  • before the sale, to mandated core testing of the foundation for pyrrhotite

Commission finds almost twenty-one thousand homes have the greatest risk

The zone that the commission proposes for mandatory foundation testing would encompass thirty-three Massachusetts cities and towns that either completely or partially lay within a thirty-mile radius from the quarry supplying the pyrrhotite laced aggregate.

These municipalities include Agawam, Belchertown, Brimfield, Brookfield, Charlton, Dudley, East Longmeadow, Granby, Hampden, Hardwick, Holland, Holyoke, Leicester, Longmeadow, Ludlow, Monson, New Braintree,  North Brookfield, Oxford, Palmer, South Hadley, Southbridge, Southwick, Spencer, Springfield, Sturbridge, Wales, Ware, Warren, Webster, West Springfield, Westfield, and Wilbraham,

The commission determined that in these towns during the time the Connecticut quarry operated a total of just over thirty-six thousand homes were built. The commission identified that the almost twenty-one thousand homes built between 1982 and 2015, within the twenty-mile radius of the quarry, had the greatest risk of defective foundations.

The commission’s recommendation tracks Connecticut’s response to its massive pyrrhotite problem

The commission’s main recommendation is for the Legislature to authorize a captive insurer based on Connecticut’s model in dealing with that state’s more than thirty-five thousand home identified with pyrrhotite foundation problems.

Connecticut’s legislature established its foundation replacement and reimbursement program by establishing a non-profit captive insurance company, The Connecticut Foundation Solutions Indemnity Company, Inc., and a separate, non-lapsing fund known as the Crumbling Foundations Assistance Fund.

Under its enabling act, the captive has a reimbursement limit of $175,000 to homeowners for foundation remediation.

Picture of house jacked up to remove foundation
Jacking a house to replace crumbling foundation cracked by pyrrhotite —Photo courtesy of Connecticut Congressman Joseph Courtney

In Connecticut, the funding for the captive came from.

  • $100 million in state bonding; and
  • a $12 annual surcharge on homeowner’s insurance policies producing $9 million per year.

Except for the surcharge of homeowner policies, the so-called captive insurer collects no premiums. All the captives funding derives from state funding and homeowner policy surcharges, and these sources quickly proved inadequate.

The captive started accepting applications for foundation repairs in January 2019, and by July of 2019, it announced that it would stop accepting applications as it had committed all its present funding. In January 2019, the company again began accepting remedial applications but only until February 29, 2020.

Considering Connecticut has an estimated thirty-five thousand homes needing remedial foundation work at or above the captive’s $175,000 remediation limit, the captive’s ability to materially alleviate the pyrrhotite problem in any reasonable timeframe under its present funding scheme seems highly unlikely.

The commission’s recommendation may face tough sledding in the Legislature

Presently, Massachusetts, as opposed to Connecticut and thirty-five other states, does not have a captive insurance law.

This lack poses no problem since the Connecticut statute establishing the Foundation Solutions Indemnity Company offers a blueprint for Massachusetts legislators to follow if they so desire.

The question is whether Massachusetts will follow Connecticut in making a political decision to fund remediation on the scale that the commission suggests the solution needs to solve the problem some unfortunate homeowners have with their crumbling foundations.

Besides the estimate of a potential $350 million cost for foundation remediation, the commission does not suggest or discuss how the Legislature may fund a Massachusetts-style Foundation Solutions Indemnity Company.

What does seem clear from the report is that the commission assumed that there were likely two thousand homes in the affected areas of Massachusetts that will need foundation remediation. The commission reached the $350 million remediation number by multiplying the $175 thousand maximum allowed by the Connecticut captive insurer’s enabling act by these two thousand possibly affected Massachusetts homes.

Whether the Legislature will commit the necessary money to set up the recommended remediation program for this number of private homes under the present financial constraints of the commonwealth is a very open question.

The commission does also suggest that the state “engage with insurers with emphasis on (a) “Encouraging insurance companies to contribute to the [proposed] Crumbling Foundations Assistance Fund.”  In Connecticut, insurers have responded to a similar appeal.

The Travelers created the Travelers Benefit Program to provide additional financial support for its customers affected by pyrrhotite. Current customers whose foundation repair costs exceed the benefit provided by the state captive could receive up to $25,000 and former customers up to $10,000, subject to program terms.

Likewise, The Hartford and Liberty Mutual agreed in a memorandum of understanding to provide supplemental financial assistance to current and former policyholders who filed claims and received awards to remediate their crumbling concrete foundations through the state’s captive insurance program.  See Agency Checklists’ article of January 15, 2019, “LBLN: Middlesex DA Gets Insurance Funds & CT Crumbling Foundations Fund, NY Approves PRAC-MAPFRE Deal

Courts find homeowner insurers have no obligation to cover these foundation losses

The commission’s suggestion for requesting voluntary payments from insurers is sensible based on homeowners having almost universally failed in their attempts in Connecticut to have their insurers pay for the replacement cost for the foundations.

In October 2019, a major decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court deciding the state law for both federal and state cases found that there was no coverage. See Agency Checklists’ article of  November 19, 2019, “CT Decision Against Crumbling Foundation Coverage—Bad News for Some Massachusetts Homeowners.”

While the Connecticut case is not binding on Massachusetts courts, a prior Massachusetts appellate decision had reached the same conclusion on the scope of a homeowner policy’s collapse coverage.

Agency Checklists will keep you posted if the Legislature acts on the proposed captive insurer

Agency Checklists will monitor whether the Legislature acts on the commission’s recommendation for a captive insurer, and keep its readers posted.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: MA Insurance Law | Insurance Coverage Cases, MA Insurance Law | Updates & Analysis Tagged With: Crumbling Foundations, Massachusetts Crumbling Foundations Fund

About Owen Gallagher

Owen Gallagher is an experienced insurance litigator as well as a certified mediator and arbitrator who specializes in insurance industry disputes. His interest and affinity for insurance began at a young age working the counter at his father’s assigned risk agency in Roxbury. Over the course of his career, Owen has argued a number of cases in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and has helped agents, insurance companies, and lawmakers alike with the complexities and idiosyncrasies of insurance law in the Commonwealth.  Owen can be reached here.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Frank Lombard CPCU says

    February 11, 2020 at 11:01 AM

    Your article highlights “insurers have no obligation to cover these (crumbling) foundation losses” while failing to mention standard homeowners policies may exclude the damage to the foundation, these same policies appear to extend coverage to any “ensuing” or resulting structural damage to the rest of the structure. All these homes will have some resulting damage; bulging floors, cracked walls, doors and windows not opening and closing properly, etc… The cost to repair this “ensuing” damage should a covered expense.

    Further, this “covered loss” should trigger the “reasonable steps” provision. The policy condition REQUIRING the homeowner to take reasonable steps to protect the home from further damage. The only way to do that is to raise the structure so the defective foundation can be replaced. A compelling argument can be raised that this cost, the major component of the $200,000+ repair cost, should be a covered expense. The policy’s “Loss of Use” or additional living expense coverage may also apply.

    The mission of the Commission was to examine potential remedies for homeowners impacted by these crumbling foundations. Shouldn’t the question be raised “Why did the Commission totally ignore this significant potential remedy included in every Massachusetts home insurance policy”?

    Wouldn’t your agent readers want to know that?

Primary Sidebar

Sponsored

Latest Agency Sales

Marsh McLennan Agency Acquires Clark Insurance, Expands Presence in New England Region

Chicopee's White Birch Insurance Acquires Connecticut Agency

Chicopee’s White Birch Insurance Acquires Connecticut Agency

Patriot Growth Adds Two Employee Benefit Agencies in Massachusetts

Cross Insurance Acquires Two More Massachusetts Insurance Agencies & Opens A New Office in Newburyport

More Agency Sales

Career News

Liberty Mutual Insurance Appoints Monica Caldas to Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer

Liberty Mutual Insurance Appoints Monica Caldas to Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer

Liberty Mutual Insurance Appoints Melanie Foley to Executive Vice President and Chief Administration Officer

Liberty Mutual Insurance Appoints Melanie Foley to Executive Vice President and Chief Administration Officer

Boston-based insurtech Hi Marley Launches Marley Insights

Hi Marley Names Jonathan Tushman as Chief Product Officer

MAPFRE USA Names Dana Whiteley as SVP Business Development

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. Elects Francisco A. Aristeguieta to Board of Directors

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. Elects Francisco A. Aristeguieta to Board of Directors

In Memoriam

In Memoriam: Martha Hinkley, 1947-2022

In Memoriam: Daniel Rizzo, 1937-2022

In Memoriam: Bruce MacDonald 1935-2022

In Memoriam: Bruce MacDonald 1935-2022

CAR News

Right to Repair Group Files Amicus Brief & Urges Prompt Ruling on Ballot Question After 1 Year Delay

3rd Look 2022: The Massachusetts Private Passenger Auto Insurance Marketplace

3rd Look 2022: The MA Commercial Auto Insurance Marketplace

17 Bullet Points on The New Insurance Labor Rate Report

View More CAR News

Massachusetts Law Updates

New Rule Would Make Insurers Pay Insured For Preventing An Insured Loss

New Rule Would Make Insurers Pay Insured For Preventing An Insured Loss

A formal request by Federal Appeals Court to the SJC to decide if insurers owe costs to prevent a covered loss.

Front view of the Quincy Mass. Masonic Temple with Roman Columns

Confused Voicemail Leads to E&O and Coverage Suits

SJC Construed For 1st Time Meaning of “Doing Business As” In Relation to CGL Coverage.

5 Points On New Ruling: Unreasonable Storage Reduces ACV Payment

A short opinion with a disproportionate impact on first-party property damage total loss claims.

Agency Checklist article on COVID-19 Closings in Massachusetts

First State High-Court COVID-19 Decision On Business Interruption Claims

Dismissed by Superior Court, the restaurants took their appeal directly to the SJC.

More Mass. Law Updates

DOI News

The 2022 Home Insurance Report Part III | Policy Numbers by Massachusetts County

The 2022 MA Home Insurance Report Part II | MA FAIR Plan Review

The 2022 MA Home Insurance Report | Part I

Mass. Business Entity License Renewals on Hold

View More DOI News

Insurance Fraud

Quinn Group Ins. Owner’s Trial to Begin on Federal Benefit and Social Security Fraud Today

First Guilty Plea in No-Fault PIP Auto Insurance Fraud Scheme

GM Financial Will Pay Over $1.8 Million For GAP Coverage Refunds and Loan Violations

Insurance Agency To Pay $100,000 Fine And $515,000 In Restitution Under Consent Decree

More Insurance Fraud News

Footer

Agency Checklists

About us
Contact us

14 Summer Street
Suite 102
Malden, MA 02148
617-598-3800

Advertise on Agency Checklists

We offer a variety of ways to get help promote your company or product.

Announcements
Email Sponsorships
Partnerships
Custom Collaborations

*Affiliate Disclosure

Please note that any of Agency Checklists’ articles might contain one or more affiliate links. This means that any subsequent purchase resulting from these links may result in a commission for us, but at no additional cost to you. For example, as an Amazon Associate, Agency Checklists earns a commission from all qualifying purchases. By working with affiliates we can continue to keep Agency Checklists subscription free. Thank you for your support.

SEARCH OUR SITE

Explore Our Archives

Copyright © 2022 · Agency Checklists · All rights reserved.

 

Loading Comments...