For more details: The licensed plumber who did the tear out cited damage to coverage A in damage to laminate floor you mention (among additional items including insulation and remediation necessary). The adjuster claimed the plumber didn't document the damage thoroughly enough and that I should have paid for a list of sophisticated forensic moisture tests (only mentioned to me after the bathroom has been rebuilt). Keep in mind this is the adjuster's speculative opinion AFTER everything has been rebuilt. In other words, State Farm had a month of the tub being torn out to send someone to investigate (which they said in writing they would do) but never did.
Also, based on policy language, I don't see any minimum dollar amount of damage to coverage A property to trigger tear-out coverage. Would a court presume that there was at least $1 of damage to my property and hence should have triggered tear-out coverage?