The central issue was whether the release of water from the broken pipe was "sudden" or occurred over "a period of time." The policyholder’s expert opined that the subject pipe "burst suddenly–in a nano-second, spraying water in the crawlspace." The court was not persuaded and found that it did not change the fact that the release of water–even by the policyholder’s own account–had occurred over a period of a month or two.
In that case, there was competing testimony from plumbing experts retained by the policyholder and insurer. Mid-Century Insurance Company, 1 the court affirmed summary judgment for the insurer in a case concerning a pipe leak. Other policies are more clear and actually state that a repeated discharge as occurring over the course of a week or longer.Įarlier this year, a California appellate court weighed in on the above. There is still quite a bit of confusion about what constitutes a "sudden and accidental" discharge versus "repeated seepage and leakage." With respect to the latter, some policies use the term "a period of time" to qualify what is meant by constant or repeated discharge. I frequently get calls from policyholders and public adjusters with questions about water loss claims caused by broken pipes. Over a year ago, I wrote a blog about pipe leaks explaining that most policies only extend coverage for “sudden and accidental” discharge or overflow of water from a plumbing system.
0 kommentar(er)
