WATER PIPE FREEZING HELD TO RESULT IN COVERED DAMAGE ONLY IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES

420_C015

WATER PIPE FREEZING HELD TO RESULT IN COVERED DAMAGE ONLY IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES

A house was vacated by its former occupants, who had defaulted on financing arrangements for its purchase. Title reverted to the sellers, who were insured under a named peril dwelling policy.

A water pipe ruptured several months later during a period of freezing weather conditions, causing water damage to the house. The house had been vacant since the departure of its former occupants, and the insurance company denied coverage on the basis of policy exclusions pertinent to the circumstances. When the insured owners filed suit, the insurer moved for summary judgment. Trial court judgment in its favor was appealed by the insureds.

The insureds claimed coverage under two named perils. One provided coverage for direct physical loss to insured property caused by accidental discharge of water from within a plumbing system. It was subject to exclusions for vacancy of more than 30 days and for loss caused by freezing. The appeal court agreed with the trial court that coverage was not applicable under this peril because of the pertinent exclusions.

Secondly, the insureds claimed coverage "for direct physical loss to property insured caused by" the named peril identified as "freezing of a plumbing....system.... Coverage thereunder was conditional on maintaining heat in the building or shutting off the water supply and draining the system.

The insureds said that they maintained heat in the house at the time the incident occurred. The appeal court found the evidence sufficient "to create a genuine issue of material fact" as to whether the insureds complied with conditions for coverage under the plumbing system freezing peril.

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in favor of the insurer in all respects except that, with respect to the freezing peril, the award of summary judgment was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.

(KENT ET UX, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF IDAHO, Defendant-Appellant. Idaho Court of Appeals. No. 21839. November 17, 1995. CCH 1996 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 5533.)