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:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Recent Developments: Lawsuit Against School District for a Bus Monitor Abusing a Special Needs Child

The parents of a child "who suffers from severe mental disabilities" sued the Beacon City School District, in Dutchess County, alleging that a bus monitor physically and mentally abused their child. The parents sued the School District for, among other things, assault, battery, and negligent supervision. The case went through the fact-finding phase (called "discovery"), and the School District made a motion to dismiss at least some of the claims. The motion was granted, but an appeals court reversed the lower court.  The appeals court first noted that  [s]chools have a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision and  [t]he standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school's supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same...
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 Cases: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court in Slip and Fall

In a decision issued on March 18, 2015 , a New York appeals court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old boy. He was injured when he slipped and fell on "loose and broken pieces of asphalt" as he was running towards an ice cream truck near an Ikea store in Brooklyn. There were two interesting things about the decision. First, like many slip and fall cases, the case turned on constructive notice--how long was the loose/broken asphalt on the ground before the accident so that the defendants should have seen it and corrected the dangerous condition? The appeals court said the defendants failed to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area, so they did not establish lack of constructive notice. The more interesting thing is that apparently the boy told staff at the hospital where he was taken that he tripped over his shoelaces. The defendants found this in the hospital records and basically said, "Ha! He di...
Post a Comment
Read more