Damages To A Swimming Pool Were Excluded From Coverage
July, 2010
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department recently upheld an insurer’s disclaimer of an insured’s claim for damages to a swimming pool based upon a provision in the insurance policy excluding damages caused by “pressure or weight of water.” Gravino v. Allstate Insurance Company, 902 N.Y.S.2d 725, 73 A.D.3d 1447 4th Dep’t 2010. Pursuant to the ruling, the Court unanimously reversed on the law and granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the insured’s Complaint. Gravin at 725.
In this action, Plaintiff commenced suit against its insurer, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”), seeking coverage for damage to an in-ground swimming pool pursuant to the terms and conditions of a homeowners’ insurance policy. Plaintiff previously drained the pool so that he could paint it, but the painting was subsequently delayed because of rain. Five days after draining the pool, Plaintiff observed that one end of the pool lifted out of the ground and there was damage to the concrete. Plaintiff submitted a claim to Allstate; Allstate disclaimed coverage for the loss on the grounds that the insurance policy excluded damage to the pool caused by “pressure or weight of water.”
The Appellate Division concluded that the Supreme Court erred in granting partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and ruling that the insurance policy covered damage to the pool. Id. at 725. Instead, the Appellate Division ruled that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of Allstate dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint. Id. at 725. In reaching its decision, the Appellate Division held that Allstate met its initial burden by establishing, as a matter of law, that the exclusion for damages caused by “pressure or weight of water” unambiguously applied to the claim. Id. at 725. The Appellate Division was not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that the damage would not have occurred if Plaintiff had not emptied the pool, which would have removed the loss from the exclusion. The insurance policy provided that where damage has two or more causes, the loss is not covered if “the predominant cause(s) of the loss is (are) excluded.” Id. at 725. Thus, in order to determine causation, the Appellate Division stated that it must look to the “efficient or dominant cause of the loss,” not the event that “merely set the stage for that later event.” Id. at 725, citing Kosich v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 214 A.D.2d 992, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 707 (4th Dep’t 1995).
In reaching its decision in favor of Allstate, the Appellate Division held as follows:
Here, although the drainage of the pool may have been a precondition to the lifting of the pool from the ground, we conclude that defendant established as a matter of law that the groundwater pressure was the “predominant cause” of the loss, thus rendering applicable the policy exclusion for damages caused by “pressure or weight of water.” See, Jahier v. Liberty Mutual Group, 64 A.D.3d 683, 685.
Id. at 725.
Based on this causation analysis, the Appellate Division reversed on the law and granted Allstate’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Learning Point:
The Appellate Division in Gravino upheld New York’s causation rules and enforced the policy language as written, ruling that it cannot ignore clear and unambiguous terms and conditions in an insurance policy.
Back to New York CM Report of Recent Decisions (2010v2) 2010 Volume 2 Table of Contents
