Baker v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134339 (M.D. Pa. 9/19/13)

Cause or source of water damage deemed irrelevant under water damage exclusion.

The insurer refused to pay for damages to the insured’s in-ground swimming pool, alleging that the damage was due to wear and tear to an underground pipe “which [exerted] pressure on [the] swimming pool.” The court found that coverage was precluded by the water damage exclusion, which barred coverage for underground water that exerts pressure on a swimming pool regardless of cause. Thus, questions regarding the circumstances of the pipe bursting were deemed irrelevant. The insured also unsuccessfully alleged that the definitions of “building” and “subsurface water” were ambiguous such that: (a) the insurer would be required to tear out and replace the damage caused to the “building” (swimming pool); and (b) there was an issue of fact as to the applicability of the water damage exclusion to the instant facts. The court determined that the water was below the surface and that coverage was precluded and granted judgment in favor of the insurer.

 

Case Law Alert, 1st Quarter 2014