Is surface water covered in a typical homeowner’s policy?.

1
Is surface water covered in a typical
homeowners policy?.
The answer is NO. Surface water is not covered
due to policy flood insurance exclusions but
just what is surface water. We recently helped
an insured who had presented a water claim that
was denied due to the Surface Water Exclusion.
The loss arose out of a human error which allowed
irrigation water to run longer than it should
have and a basement of an upscale home filed up
with water causing some serious damage. The
insurance companys response was to write a
letter regarding policy exclusions. The policy
contains the following exclusions
Surface Water. We do not cover any loss by
flood , surface water, waves, tidal water,
overflow of water from a body of water, or water
borne material from any of these, including when
any such waters or water borne material enters
and backs up or discharges from or overflows
from any sewer or drain located outside of or on
the exterior of a fully enclosed structure
runoff of water or water borne material from a
paved surface, driveway, walkway, patio, or other
similar surface or spray from any of these,
even if driven by wind. But we do insure ensuing
covered loss unless another exclusion
applies. Ground water. We do not cover any
loss caused by water or water borne material
2
in the ground, or by its pressure, leakage, or
seepage. But we do insure (an) ensuing covered
loss unless another exclusion applies. To help
this insured, I presented an argument that
exclusions did not apply to the facts of this
loss. This loss occurred when the insureds
daughter turned on the flood irrigation valve to
the property, which was located around 200 feet
from the residence structure. The daughter did
not return to shut off the valve in a timely
fashion. As a result, irrigation water ran
unchecked for a long enough period that it
overtook the concrete sidewalk and curb
surrounding the house (which usually formed a
barrier that protected the house from irrigation
water intrusion) and water was permitted to
enter the ground level and basement of the
home. Do you know the Difference Between
Insurance Company, Independent Adjuster and
Public Insurance Adjuster I advised the insurer
that it should be noted that the loss was of
irrigation water which is part of a system of
canals that distributes water throughout the area
where the insureds residence is located. Since
we are not dealing with the open seas or a lake
in this case, we can immediately dispose of the
language of the exclusion dealing with waves,
tidal water, or overflow of water from a body
of water, I told them. Also, this loss did not
involve a flood as that term has been defined
by our Courts. In Wallis v. Country Mutual
Companies, 723 N.E. 376 (2000) the Illinois Court
of Appeals considered similar language and
defined flood as follows The term flood is
not defined in the policy therefore, we defer to
its plain and ordinary meaning. The common
meaning of a flood is a rising and overflowing
of a body of water that covers land not
usually under water. Websters Third New
International Dictionary 873 (1993). Water from a
flood is termed floodwater which means,
water that escapes from a watercourse in large
volumes and flows over adjoining property in no
regular channel. Blacks Law Dictionary 1585
(7th ed. 1999). Since this loss involved water
that was delivered to the insureds property by
man made irrigation canals, it is not,
therefore, surface water, I argued. This issue
was addressed in Heller v. Fire Insurance
Exchange, 800 P.2d 1006 (1990). There, the
Colorado Supreme Court held that water that
originated from natural snow run
3
off but was then diverted into man made trenches
was not surface water within the meaning of the
exclusion in a property insurance policy. The
Court stated Here, the water originated from
natural runoff of melted snow, but was diverted
into man-made trenches that were fifteen to
twenty feet long and six inches deep. The
trenches diverted the regular path of the melted
snow over a natural ridge. These trenches were
defined channels that diverted the regular flow
of the water, preventing percolation,
evaporation, or natural drainage. In examining
the characteristics of the water that damaged the
Hellers property, we conclude that the runoff
lost its character as surface water when it was
diverted by the trenches and therefore was not
within the surface water exclusion contained in
the Hellers policy. Accordingly, the judgment
of the court of appeals is reversed and the case
remanded to that court with directions to
reinstate the judgment of the trial
court. This left only the language of the
exclusion regarding overflow from a sewer or
drain. This language also did not apply to the
scenario of the insureds loss. This was not a
case were a drain or sewer became clogged or
overfilled and then backed up. The water from
the irrigation canal was simply not turned off in
time and the water overtook the natural and man
made barriers that surrounded the
house. According to the holdings of the Courts,
a backup or overflow of a drain connotes
water coming out of a drain that is designed to
carry water away from a structure. See Pichel v.
Dryden Mutual Ins. Co. 965 N.Y.S. 2d 342 (May 23,
2013). There were no facts to indicate that a
drain was even involved in the present
matter. Having dispensed with every argument
that the insurer could make to deny the claim,
the insurer tendered payment.