You are here: / / “Ensuing Loss” Exception to Coverage Exclusion for Water Damage...
,

“Ensuing Loss” Exception to Coverage Exclusion for Water Damage Did Not Apply to Water Damage Stemming from an “Explosion” of a Water Main Outside Plaintiffs’ Home—The “Ensuing Loss” Exception in the Policy Referred Only to Water Damage which Stemmed from a Covered Peril (Like a Fire)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, with a concurring opinion, determined the water-damage exclusion in the homeowner’s policy precluded recovery for water entering plaintiffs’ basement when a water main burst outside the home.  Plaintiffs argued that an exception in the policy for water damage resulting from an “explosion” allowed recovery.  The Court of Appeals held that the “explosion” exception was part of an “ensuing loss” exception referring to water damage which necessarily followed a covered event, like an explosion or fire, and did not cover water damage stemming from an “explosion” of a water main outside the home:

First, “[i]n determining a dispute over insurance coverage, we first look to the language of the policy” … . Concomitantly, we “construe the policy in a way that affords a fair meaning to all of the language employed by the parties in the contract and leaves no provision without force and effect” … .

Second, although the insurer has the burden of proving the applicability of an exclusion …, it is the insured’s burden to establish the existence of coverage … . Thus, “[where] the existence of coverage depends entirely on the applicability of [an] [*5]exception to the exclusion, the insured has the duty of demonstrating that it has been satisfied” … .

And finally, “[w]here a property insurance policy contains an exclusion with an exception for ensuing loss, courts have sought to assure that the exception does not supersede the exclusion by disallowing coverage for ensuing loss directly related to the original excluded risk” …

In this case, plaintiffs’ loss occurred when water from a burst water main flowed onto their property, flooding the basement of their home. Accordingly, their loss clearly falls within item 4 of the water loss exclusion, which bars coverage for “loss to the property . . . consisting of or caused by . . . 4. Water . . . on or below the surface of the ground, regardless of its source . . .[, including] water . . . which exerts pressure on, or flows, seeps or leaks through any part of the residence premises” … .

Turning … to the sudden and accidental exception, this clause is properly characterized as an ensuing loss provision, which “provide[s] coverage when, as a result of an excluded peril, a covered peril arises and causes damage” … . Platek v Town of Hamburg, 2015 NY Slip Op 01483, CtApp 2-19-15

 

You might also like
The Failure of the Record to Indicate Whether Notes from the Jury Were Properly Addressed by the Court Constitutes a “Mode of Proceedings” Error
DEFENDANT’S PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED A QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL BECAUSE OF COUNSEL’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WITHOUT A HEARING WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (CT APP).
THE DEFENSE MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THAT THE MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION WAS APPROPRIATE, THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY PLACED THE BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE THE WITNESS’S TESTIMONY WOULD NOT BE CUMULATIVE ON THE DEFENDANT, THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE THE TESTIMONY WOULD BE CUMULATIVE (CT APP).
A CANINE SNIFF FOR DRUGS IS A SEARCH; ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD ALSO RULED THE CANINE SNIFF WAS A SEARCH, THE APPELLATE DIVISION WENT ON TO APPLY THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” STANDARD AND FOUND THAT STANDARD HAD BEEN MET BY THE FACTS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE APPELLATE DIVISION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RULE ADVERSELY TO THE DEFENDANT ON THE STANDARD BECAUSE COUNTY COURT HAD NOT RULED ON THAT ISSUE (COUNTY COURT HELD THE SNIFF WAS NOT A SEARCH); THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO COUNTY COURT FOR RULINGS ON THE STANDARD FOR A SNIFF SEARCH (CT APP). ​
THE FACT THAT THE SENTENCING COURT IN 2016 DID NOT USE DEFENDANT’S 2006 CONVICTION TO ENHANCE HIS SENTENCE DID NOT REQUIRE THE SORA COURT TO IGNORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WHICH WAS NEVER DIRECTLY ATTACKED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS NEVER VACATED; THEREFORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY RELIED UPON BY THE SORA COURT TO ASSESS DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE RISK (CT APP).
WHERE THERE IS A FACTUAL DISPUTE ON A MATERIAL ISSUE WHICH MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE THE COURT CAN DECIDE A LEGAL ISSUE, THE FACTUAL DISPUTE MUST BE RESOLVED IN A HEARING BEFORE THE COURT CAN DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUE; WHETHER THE RECORD GIVES RISE TO A FACTUAL DISPUTE ON A MATERIAL ISSUE IS A QUESTION OF LAW (CT APP).
A CONTRACTUAL NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION OVERRIDES AN OTHERWISE APPLICABLE NEW YORK STATUTORY CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF ANOTHER STATE’S LAW.
A GAP IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT AND A DISCREPANCY IN THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE BAG CONTAINING THE DRUGS DID NOT RENDER THE DRUGS INADMISSIBLE (CT APP).

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

Municipal Action Re: a Mining Permit Not Ripe for Review Bare Allegation in an Attorney Affidavit that, Upon Information and Belief,...