Damages to Home from Marijuana Production Deemed "Vandalism" under Homeowners Policy
华盛顿上诉法院裁定，租户将房屋改为大麻种植导致霉菌等损害，属于房主保险中的“故意破坏”行为，保险公司应赔偿。
Bowers v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 991 P.2d 734 (Washington Court of Appeals- January 25, 2000) For any prospective landlords who thought the '60s were dead comes a cautionary tale from the state of Washington, but one with a happy ending for the policyholder. Homeowner Bethany Bowers was also a landlord who rented her home to tenants who converted the house into a marijuana growing operation. The marijuana cultivation caused damage to the house, including mold growth throughout the 991 P.2d at 735. The marijuana production essentially involved turning the home into a hothouse with halide lights, covered windows, and aluminum foil on the The home's heating system was diverted into providing heat only to the basement grow room. As a result, mold spread rapidly and dramatically throughout the house in only three months. By that time, Bowers had become suspicious and called the Spokane police, who busted the operation. Nonetheless, significant damage had been done to the house that necessitated replacement of the wall paneling in the basement and other extensive cleanup. Bowers made an insu rance claim on her policy, which covered her as a landlord as well as an owner-occupant. Insurer Farmers agreed to pay for the replacement of the wall paneling, but refused to pay for the mold-related damage, contending that this type of loss was not covered under the policy. In particular, Farmers cited its and exclusion, which precludes coverage for what may be termed natural deterioration of the property, including rust; mold; wet or dry rot; settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion of ... walls. 991 P2d at 736. [1] The policy also excluded coverage for losses resulting from vandalism or malicious mischief if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days just before the loss, so vandalism was covered since the premises were occupied during the time in question. The policyholder contended that the mold damage was not wear and tear but was the result of vandalism, and the Court agreed. According to the court, vandalism is defined as willful or malicious destruction or defacement of property. Where reasonably expected damage occurs from intentional acts, vandalism has been committed. The court found this applicable to the Bower situation: the tenants knew that tranforming the home into a marijuana greenhouse would turn it into a steaming jungle and could reasonably have expected the changed environment to produce mold and other damage; the tenants thus vandalized the house. The court compared the Bowers situation to Georgia precedent in which a tenant operated an illegal moonshine still in the house, causing reasonably expected damage due to smoke and condensation. …