Skip to main content

Insurance Coverage: No Winners in Decision by NY High Court

On February 19, 2015, the New York Court of Appeals issued a decision denying two homeowners coverage for water damage caused by a water main that burst ("exploded"?) next to their house in Erie County. The water flooded their finished basement and caused $110,000 in damage.

The homeowners filed a claim with their homeowners insurance company, Allstate. Allstate denied the claim, saying the policy did not cover damage caused by water "on or below the surface of the ground, regardless of its source". The homeowners sued Allstate for breach of contract (the insurance policy) and their local town (Hamburg) for negligence. The homeowners argued that the insurance policy does cover water damage caused by "explosions", and the water main "exploded".

The homeowners won in the lower court (Supreme Court) and on appeal. But New York's highest court sided with Allstate and said, sorry for your $110,000 in damage, homeowners, but the policy language is "unambiguous", and the policy does not cover water damage caused by under-the-surface water. And we don't think the water main "exploded" in the way you are arguing.

It's a shame. By the strict reading of the law and the insurance policy, the Court of Appeals probably got it right. BUT...courts have a toolbox filled with tools. They can justify any result in any case with the tools they have available and sometimes reach decisions as a way of forcing settlements. The insurance company ultimately "won" on paper but probably spent more than $110,000 defending the case anyway. There are no true winners here.





Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Contractor Entitled to be Paid For Extra Work Not Part of Original Contract

On September 12, 2013, the Town of Kent (Putnam County) entered into a contract with a contractor to build a sewer.  During construction, certain "conditions that were unexpected and unanticipated" arose, requiring the contractor to do "extra" work--things beyond the scope of work of the original contract. (The appeals court doesn't detail what this extra work was.) The contractor performed the extra work, totaling around $380,000 in additional costs. For reasons not stated by the appeals court, the Town refused to pay for this extra work, and the contractor eventually sued the Town in May, 2015.  The contractor moved for summary judgment in the lower court (a kind of mini-trial on paper), and the court awarded judgment in favor of the contractor for the $380,000.  The Town appealed, but the appeals court sided with the contractor, saying that even though this "extra" work was not within the scope of work of the original contract, the con...
Post a Comment
Read more