|
Commercial Property |
Frozen Plumbing Exclusion |
|
Maintaining heat exception |
|
Fredrich 2 Partners, LTD. (Fredrich) insured its
seven buildings with American National Property & Casualty Company
(American). A severe winter storm drove temperatures below freezing for four
consecutive days causing an insulated copper pipe in one of the buildings to
freeze and rupture. This resulted in water damage to two units in the
building’s interior. At the time of the event, one unit was occupied and
heated. The other was vacant and unheated. The ruptured copper pipe was located
in the attic space above the vacant unit.
Fredrich submitted a claim for the water damage to
American. American denied the claim based on the frozen plumbing exclusion.
Fredrich sued American for coverage. Both asked for
Summary Judgment from the court. Fredrich argued that, because it maintained
heat in the occupied unit in the building, it satisfied the heat maintenance exception
to the frozen plumbing exclusion. The trial court granted Fredrich’s motion and
denied American’s so American appealed.
American argued that Fredrich could not claim the
exception because it had done nothing to maintain the heat in the building.
Fredrich argued that it did maintain heat in the building and the record
established that Fredrich provided the electricity and gas to keep the building’s
occupied unit heated during the storm. The appellate court noted that the policy
did not require that Fredrich maintain heat in each unit. It only required that
Fredrich heat the building.
The appellate court overruled American’s sole issue
and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso. American National Property & Casualty Company, Appellant, v. Fredrich 2 Partners, LTD., Appellee. No. 08-12-00133-CV. July 31, 2013. 408 S.W.3d 610