That article says this "The homeowner’s policy explicitly states that it doesn’t cover rodent infestations. But in 2006, Allstate had no problem paying $3,841 to have the flying mammals evicted from her walls. And that would make sense, as bats and rodents, biologically speaking, are from two distinct orders (Chiroptera and Rodentia, respectively). The homeowner took her problem to Sacramento’s CBS 13, where reporter Kurtis Ming attempted to get to the bottom of this dung heap. Allstate eventually told the TV station that it made a mistake when it paid the claim in 2006 and that the homeowner’s policy “excludes bats,” even though Ming could not find the word anywhere in the documentation. The California Dept. of Insurance looked into the situation but decided not to do anything, calling it a difference of opinion." A "difference of opinion"??? So in Allstate's "opinion" bats and rodents are the same species. Boy would I be taking that one to court. LOL If the policy stated it didn't cover infestations, they could refuse to cover a bat infestation, but specifically stating they don't cover Rodent infestations means just that. It would be easy to prove in court that bats are not rodents.