Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
8 months ago II purchased an older but newly installed roof, flooring and paint manufactured home that in the summer I became aware was infested with hundreds of bats. This was not disclosed to me by the seller but my neighbors told me the bats have been in my home for years. I have been turned down by my homeowners insurance and the sellers claim to have no knowledge of bats. Isn't it a law that bats should have been disclosed at purchase and if not a law shouldn't my homeowner's insurance cover the $7,000 I am out over this.
2 Answers from Attorneys
I'd say the sellers should have disclosed the problem, and that the homeowners' insurance is probably right to turn down your claim (but I'd have to read your policy to be sure of the latter). This sounds like a suitable matter to take to Small Claims Court, and bring the neighbor to the hearing as a witness.
Your homeowners insurance does not appear to be on the hook, based on the facts that you have presented, because they are your insurer, and not the sellers. It would appear that the bats were there previously, and are not a "loss" occuring during your ownership and the time that your policy would be in effect.
You could submit a claim to your insurer, to be on the safe side, because I've seen weirder things, but be prepared to be rejected.
If the seller was aware of the bats, and failed to close, you may have a case against the seller. I'm assuming that the $7,000.00 is the amount to correct the problem and not a figure you picked to be within jurisdiction of the small claims court.