PHILADELPHIA – The Superior Court has upheld a March 2016 ruling that an insurance company did not breach its contract with a property owner. 

The Ridgewood Group appealed summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs Millers Capital Insurance in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The original judgment dismissed Ridgewood’s complaint of breach of insurance contract and bad faith.

Ridgewood argued in its appeal that the trial court made an error by applying a groundwater damage exclusion in the policy in question. 

Ridgewood purchased an "all risk" insurance policy from Millers to cover its residential rental properties. The policy covered water damage but did not cover damage caused by flood, surface water, waves, overflow of bodies of water, etc.

The plan also didn’t cover damage caused by faulty maintenance work. However, the policy covered faulty maintenance damage.

The property at issue sustained water damage in its basement in March 2014. Equipment was damaged as well. Both parties agreed a rain storm was the cause of the damage.

The water traveled from the roof to a window well, then to the basement. Millers denied coverage for the damage, citing surface water and negligence as the exclusion in the policy.

Ridgewood filed a lawsuit stating breach of contract and bad faith. As a result of the lawsuit brought against it, Millers filed a motion for summary judgment. It argued that Ridgewood’s claim was clearly not covered in the policy and that it had made the policy very clear to Ridgewood.

The trial court agreed with Millers, as did the Superior Court.

During the appeal, Millers doubled down on its motion for summary judgment argument that “the state of disrepair from the failure to maintain the roof, gutters and downspouts allowed rainwater and melting snow to overflow the debris clogged gutter and to flow into the air well and enter the basement.”

The Superior Court concluded that "ground water" does not include rain water that travels from the roof to a basement though drainage pipes or other channels connected to a house. Because of this, it concluded that the trial court did not make a mistake in determining that the policy’s "negligent work exclusion" prevented insurance coverage, upholding the ruling.

Want to get notified whenever we write about Superior Court of Pennsylvania ?
Next time we write about Superior Court of Pennsylvania , we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

More News