Carrier tactic
"Smoke damage is cosmetic / odor exclusion."
Our rebuttal
HO-3 "physical loss" language covers smoke particulate infiltration into structure and contents. An HVAC air-quality test and an industrial hygienist report demonstrating soot deposition are the rebuttal; CO courts have repeatedly held that smoke infiltration constitutes a covered physical loss — not a cosmetic preference. The odor-exclusion endorsement, where it exists, reads narrowly and does not exclude particulate contamination documented by a third-party hygienist.