In the case of possible heat damage (which would be impossible for myself and many others) probably, yes. I think the main things people are really trying to protect against are fire and theft though.
1 Like
Honestly that’s unlikely to tell him anything. Even if there were seepage and protruding corks, the wine will likely drink fine today or next month. Heat damage shows up down the road in the wine tasting more advanced than expected or just tired.
1 Like
Honestly I think if the temperatures gradually increased to 80 over time, it’s unlikely the wine suffered heat damage. Wine is a lot more sturdy than people give it credit for.
6 Likes
Do you have to have all your policies with Chubb or can you just get the wine insurance separately
you can get the wine insurance separately.
2 Likes
Michael beat me to it, you can purchase it separately.
Here is the result of my conversation with the insurance company.
They will not cover the wine. The reason being that my policy(which i asked them to show me where) does not cover items with a fungus in it. I said HUH. There is a fungus amungus?? Trying to add some humor.
Yes, yeast is a fungus and since their forensic chemist said there is “some yeast” in wine, they will not cover it. It has changed on a molecular level because of the yeast–not the heat. The wine on the inside changing was because of the yeast present. So it was me against the forensic chemist–and I’ll lose that every time as I have no way to prove him wrong.
I then asked the question–would you cover my wine if was in a fire? He COULD NOT answer that question but it is almost the same thing. The outside of the bottle isn’t damaged and the only reason the wine inside changed was because of the yeast present.
They said the claim was denied unless I could find MY forensic chemist to dispute their “expert”. Does anyone out there claim to be one, or know of one that could help me??
Moral of the story: Don’t do business with Secura Insurance out of Wisconsin. Then, make sure your policy doesn’t have exclusions for fungus. If your wine is covered for fire damage–even if the bottles themselves were not in the fire–get something in writing as they could pull the same thing on any claim. YEAST…FUNGUS…UGHHH
I am of course switching insurance companies and I may continue to fight but it sure seems like a losing battle.
Life’s lessons learned… 
1 Like
Seems crappy but hardly shocking. I like the advice already given several times: start pulling the corks of the most fragile wines and enjoy life. 
1 Like
I have got to admit I didn’t see that coming. If I understand correctly, they are trying to use the fungus exception in your policy by claiming that the fungus (yeast) is the cause of any problems and fungus is excluded under most conditions. Therefore, there may be issues with the wine but because of the fungus exclusion, it isn’t covered.
I give them credit for creativity but by going to such lengths to find a reason not to pay for what should be a straightforward rejection makes me think that maybe you had a valid claim. Otherwise just reject it as perishable food not covered by equipment failure not due to a covered condition.
I hope nobody trips and falls at your house with that policy. Their Microbiota is going to exclude coverage and leave you liable.
I was in for coming over for the pop some corks party until I see your policy.
That said I’m in the camp of your wine is surely not ruined, although I understand some concern.
Paging @Ben_M_a_n_d_l_e_r ? The first person that came to mind who may fit the bill based on his posts…
I’m honestly not surprised they denied the claim, but more surprised regarding the reason.
Either way, sorry for your experience and hopefully most of the bottles are still drinkable!
Is the fungus exception expressly in the policy contract?
1 Like
I’m asking for a copy of my policy with the “fungus” exemption highlighted. I’ll let you know what I get and how I missed that in the 40 page document(or however long it was) that said what they do and do not cover.
When he couldn’t answer the “fire” question, that really got me concerned because I have more than 200 bottles in my main cellar. It seems to reason that they could use the same exemption on that instance.
I am reaching out to Chubb tomorrow and will check the other options presented in the thread as well.
Thanks to all for you help and hopefully this might help someone else as well.
1 Like
They are an (underwriter?) for Chubb. I got a policy with them last year and they have been great to deal with and super informative. I haven’t had to make a claim, but it sounds like it would be very simple if I ever did. Definitely recommend them so far.
1 Like
Separately. To add to this though. You are supposed to cover your entire wine collection, anywhere in the world with them. Not just the wine at one location or another. That is my understanding, at least.
1 Like
Document the fungus discussion and e-mail it to your agent and the insurance company. Misrepresentation can be fraud.
1 Like
directed at OP, not Joe
This sucks and I’m sure it’s been a real pain dealing with, quite aside from the unenviable position of being stuck in AZ without AC in August.
Unfortunately, there are no good markers for heat damage in wine under the conditions you’re describing. And you don’t have a baseline against which to compare any results you might get. Very hard to prove that any negative characters in your wine are due to this heat issue and not a prior issue in prior storage or transit. Unless you have a bunch of pushed out corks, but my guess is that you don’t because 80 F for 2 weeks isn’t all that bad. Given the thermal mass of your wine cooler and its contents I would expect your wine to have been below that temperature for most of that time.
Your insurance company clearly does not know what they are talking about, which makes the situation particularly frustrating, but I think even if they did it’d be tricky. If your bottles aren’t showing any physical signs of harm (leaking, pushed out corks) then their argument is that 2 weeks of internal temperatures most likely in the 70s just aren’t going to harm your wine.
6 Likes
Thanks Ben!
You might consider hiring a public adjuster or litigating if you feel your admitted homeowners policy covers the potential loss.
1 Like
I agree with Ben. The fungus explanation is nonsense, but to me, even if the wine ought to be covered by the policy, the crux of it is whether you have actually suffered any loss.
And as of now, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of any loss. What insurance company is going to pay a claim without evidence of any damage or loss?
We can theorize and express opinions about what might have happened to those bottles, but “some people think they might be affected” isn’t the basis for a claim. If they were stolen, smashed, or frozen or heated to where the corks pushed and leaked, you’d have evidence. But now? You don’t even have so much as being able to say “I opened a few bottles and they taste damaged.”
And again, it seems like if they did pay the claim, you ought to surrender all the bottles to them. Do you even want to do that?
3 Likes