You are here: / / Ambiguous Terms Interpreted to Give Meaning to All Terms—Here Water...

Ambiguous Terms Interpreted to Give Meaning to All Terms—Here Water Damage Caused By Plumbing Backup Originating in Building Was Covered—Water Damage Caused By Plumbing Backup Originating Outside the Building Was Not Covered

The Third Department determined ambiguous terms in an insurance policy concerning whether water backing up through plumbing to cause damage was excluded were properly interpreted by Supreme Court. The ambiguous terms were interpreted to mean that damage from water backing up caused by a problem within the buildings own plumbing is covered, but similar damage caused by a backup originating outside the building (a municipal sewer system, for example) was not covered:

Where an insurer relies on an exclusion to avoid coverage, it has the burden of demonstrating “that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and applies in the particular case” … . Moreover, we are “obligat[ed] to interpret the exclusion in a manner that gives full force and effect to the policy language and does not render a portion of the provision meaningless” … . “While [u]nambiguous provisions of a policy are given their plain and ordinary meaning, where policy language is unclear or subject to multiple reasonable interpretations, such ambiguities are resolved against the insurer” … .

In our view, when the exclusion and coverage provisions at issue here are read together, an ambiguity exists in the insurance policy as to losses resulting from a backup and/or overflow from sewers, drains and/or plumbing systems. Although the resolution of this ambiguity appears to be an issue of first impression in this state, Supreme Court’s analysis — that a plumbing system, as referenced in the coverage provision, includes drains that are on the insured’s property — is consistent with decisions in other jurisdictions that have interpreted the interplay of competing provisions similar to those in question here … . Pichel v Dryden Mut Ins Co 2014 NY Slip Op 03575, 3rd Dept 5-15-14

 

You might also like
PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE INSTRUCTED THE GRAND JURY ON THE AGENCY DEFENSE IN THIS CRIMINAL SALE OF MARIJUANA CASE, INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED.
ONE PURPOSE FOR ASSESSING ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST THE AGENCY IN A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW CASE IS TO DISCOURAGE DELAYS IN RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS; THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP) TURNED OVER THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE APPEAL, THE DEP STILL SHOULD PAY THE ATTORNEY’S FEES RELATED TO THE APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ ERRONEOUSLY DESCRIBED EASEMENT PROPERLY RELOCATED BY PLAINTIFF.
Insanity Acquittee Not Entitled to Blanket Sealing of Record of a Recommitment Proceeding But Is Entitled to Sealing of His Clinical Record
Where It Was Not Clear that Grand Jury Proceedings in Which a County Employee Was Directed to Appear Involved a Criminal Matter, as Opposed to Civil Misconduct or Neglect, the County Was Required to Pay for the Employee’s Defense Pursuant to Public Officers Law Section 18
DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER DID NOT DIRECT OR EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE STATUTORY HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY, SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK (THIRD DEPT). ​
Motion to Dismiss In Which Documentary Evidence Was Submitted—Court’s Role Is to Determine Whether Plaintiff Has a Cause of Action, Not Whether Plaintiff Has Stated a Cause of Action—Although the Complaint Alleged Interference With a Competitive Bidding Process Involving Public Entities, the Case Fit an Exception to the Rule that Competitive Bidding Issues Be Determined in an Article 78 Proceeding—It Was Alleged a Private Party (Defendant) Interfered with the Competitive Bidding Process
HERE THE STUDENT WITH DISABILITIES WAS UNSUPERVISED IN GYM CLASS WHEN SHE WAS INJURED; THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT SUCCESSFULLY EXCLUDED EVIDENCE THAT MORE SUPERVISION OF THE STUDENT WAS NEEDED BECAUSE SUCH EVIDENCE PURPORTEDLY CONFLICTED WITH THE STUDENT’S “AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 504 PLAN” (WHICH DID NOT CALL FOR EXTRA SUPERVISION) AND THEREFORE EXTRA SUPERVISION WOULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO DISCRIMINATION; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REJECTED THE ARGUMENT FINDING THAT THE 504 PLAN DID NOT ACT AS A CEILING FOR THE LEVEL OF SUPERVISION TO BE AFFORDED THE STUDENT AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy