What the engine does not decide

Generated from records, 2026-10-11

These stay out of the POC by decision, not by oversight. Where one of these appears on a claim, the brief should name it and ask the adjuster to review manually - the sentence that does so ("No recovery theory in the engine covers {Name} as {role}; review manually.") is SL-FIX-10's job and is not yet implemented; this page is the list it will eventually point to, carried today in docs/developer/bundle/subro_known_gaps_property.md.

Condominium or association responsibility

Damage caused by, or recoverable from, a condominium or homeowners' association is not modelled. No theory targets an association role.

Property managers

A property manager acting for an owner or landlord is not a distinct target. No theory targets a property-manager role.

Alarm or monitoring contract caps

Limitation-of-liability clauses in alarm or monitoring contracts are not read. The engine does not discount or bar a theory on this basis.

Identified arsonists or vandals

A named arsonist or vandal is not a subrogation target under any current theory; this is a liability, not a negligence, fact pattern the corpus does not yet cover.

Arbitration programmes

No property intercompany arbitration programme is modelled (unlike AUTO, which has one).

Damage to the product itself (economic loss rule)

Where a product's own failure damages only the product itself, most states bar recovery under the economic loss rule. This distinction is not read by the product liability theory.

Design professionals

An architect or engineer's own repose/limitation treatment can differ from a contractor's (the CT construction-repose hold row's own note flags this distinction for CT specifically). Not modelled as a separate role or rule.

Damage from construction next door

A loss caused by a third party's construction project on an adjacent property is not a distinct theory. It may partly overlap with the neighbouring-property theory, but the roster role and evidence requirements are not written for a construction-specific fact pattern.

California utility wildfire (inverse condemnation)

California's inverse-condemnation doctrine for utility-caused wildfire is not modelled. The utility theory reads ordinary negligence facts only.