If you’ve received a denial letter after a frozen pipe claim, you may have seen language like this:
“You failed to take reasonable steps to maintain heat at the property.”
For many homeowners, that phrase is both confusing and alarming. Does this mean you had to guarantee heat 24 hours a day? What if the system failed unexpectedly? What if you were away from the property? And what level of heat do you even need?
Understanding what this language actually means and how insurers apply it can make the difference between a denied claim and a covered loss.
What Does “Reasonable Steps” or “Reasonable Care” Mean in a Homeowners Insurance Policy?
Denial letters frequently refer to a failure to take “reasonable steps” or to exercise “reasonable care” to maintain heat. However, many homeowner policies state that the freezing exclusion does not apply if the insured exercised reasonable care to maintain heat in the building or shut off the water supply and drain the system.
That distinction matters. The policy typically does not require you to guarantee that heat was maintained at every moment. Instead, the controlling question is whether you exercised reasonable care under the circumstances.
In other words, the question is not: “Was heat maintained?” but rather “Did the homeowner act reasonably to protect the property?”
Why Insurers Deny Frozen Pipe Claims
In our experience, carriers tend to frame these claims around a few recurring themes:
- The homeowner did not check on the property frequently enough
- The homeowner should have foreseen a mechanical failure
- The property was vacant or unoccupied
- Heat was allegedly not maintained
- The thermostat was set too low
These arguments shift the focus away from what the policy requires and toward what the carrier believes the homeowner should have done.
Most policies do not require homeowners to predict sudden equipment malfunctions. Instead, they require “reasonable care”.
A Common Scenario: Second or Seasonal Homes
Consider this example: You own a second home in the Poconos. Before leaving, you set the thermostat to a normal temperature. Your utilities are active. The heating system has been serviced annually. While you are away, the system unexpectedly fails. A pipe freezes and bursts. When you return, you discover significant water damage.
The carrier may argue that heat was not maintained and that the freeze would not have occurred otherwise. But that argument does not automatically answer the legal question.
If you left the heat on, maintained the system, and had no reason to anticipate a sudden failure, those facts may support that you exercised reasonable care. Courts generally treat “reasonable care” as a fact-specific inquiry. It depends on the circumstances, not hindsight.
What Counts as “Reasonable Care”?
There is no single checklist, but courts often evaluate practical considerations such as:
- How long the property was vacant
- Whether utility services were active
- Whether maintenance records exist
- Whether the heat was set to an appropriate temperature (check your policy if they require a certain temperature)
- If the homeowner took additional precautions when away
- Whether the homeowner periodically checked on the property
For example, leaving a primary residence unattended for a short vacation with the heat turned on to a normal temperature may be reasonable. But leaving a second home unattended for five years without checking on it is a different scenario.
How to Prove You Exercised Reasonable Care
If your claim is challenged, documentation becomes critical. Helpful evidence may include smart thermostat logs, HVAC service records, property inspection reports, or utility bills showing active heating service.
Often, coverage disputes turn on documentation rather than the actual cause of the pipe freeze. These materials help demonstrate the steps taken before the loss occurred.
What About Commercial Properties and Vacation Homes?
The “reasonable care to maintain heat” issue does not only arise in primary residences. We frequently see similar disputes involving commercial buildings, mixed-use properties, rental properties, and second homes subject to seasonal vacancy.
In some commercial or vacation property policies, coverage may depend on compliance with particular protective measures such as draining pipes, maintaining minimum heat levels, or installing automatic shut-off systems. These policies are often more technical and more heavily negotiated by carriers after a loss.
If you own a business property or second home, it is important to understand how your commercial policy differs from a standard homeowners policy. You can read more about those differences in our webinar, “Understanding Commercial Property Insurance Policies.”
What Should You Do If Your Claim Is Denied for Failure to Maintain Heat?
If your denial letter references the wording below, do not assume the decision is final.
- “Failure to maintain heat”
- “Vacancy exclusion”
- “Neglect”
- “Protective safeguard endorsement”
These are common exclusions carriers use to deny coverage. If your claim has been denied based on this language, it may be worth having the policy and denial reviewed carefully. These claims are frequently litigated and often turn on detailed factual analysis.
Frozen pipe claims are common during winter storms and extended cold periods. Denials based on “failure to maintain heat” are also common. But the controlling question in most policies is whether you took reasonable care to maintain heat at the property.
At Wheeler, DiUlio & Barnabei, we regularly review homeowners and commercial property policies to evaluate whether coverage was improperly denied. If you exercised reasonable care to maintain heat and your carrier is refusing to pay, the denial may warrant closer review.
A careful analysis of your policy language, documentation, and the carrier’s stated basis for denial can make a meaningful difference. Contact Wheeler, DiUlio, & Barnabei to schedule a consultation.
