![]() The damages in Taylor involved a leak lasting only eight days, thus clearly were less than 14 days. While Judge Self recognized that based on Taylor, the insured’s damages caused by the first 13 days would be not be excluded, he found no guidance in that opinion on how to separate the damages caused by the first 13 days and those caused by the remaining 12 days. Allstate denied the insured’s claim after its adjuster determined that, based on the extent of the mold growth, the water had been running for “enough time” to deny the insured’s claim under the “continuous or repeated seepage and leakage” exclusion. In that case, water seeped from a supply line running from the kitchen sink to the refrigerator ice maker for a 25-day period. That issue, however, was recently addressed by her colleague Judge Self in Landrum v. In Taylor, Judge Abrams did not have to address how to assess the amount of damage that occurred within the first thirteen days versus the remaining period in which the water seeped or leaked. Due to the ambiguity, Judge Abrams held that the term “weeks” is construed to mean at least fourteen days, and therefore, the insured’s water loss that occurred over an eight-day period was covered. Judge Abrams noted that the term was not defined in the policy, and was susceptible to one or more meanings, and was thus ambiguous. Foremost denied coverage, in part, based on the exclusion barring coverage caused by “continuous on repeated seepage or leakage of water of steam from within a plumbing, heating, fire protective sprinkler or air conditioning system or from within an appliance which occurs over a period of weeks, months, or years.” Foremost contended the exclusion applied “because the water occurred over eight days, which is greater than one week.” The insureds, however, argued that the term “weeks” applies to period of more than 14 days. Former tenants apparently had left a faucet on, but when the water was turned back on after it had been shut off during the repairs, the water ran causing structural damage to the insured’s home. On the day of discovery, the well was fixed, but when the insured returned eight days later, he saw water “pouring out the front door.” Id. In that case, the insured observed that a well supplying water to his rental property had broken. In 2017, Judge Abrams penned the first Federal Court opinion in Georgia to hold that the term “weeks” in the exclusion is construed to mean at least fourteen days, and therefore, water losses occurring within the first 13 days are covered. For example, who will have the burden of separating the damages that may have occurred within the first 13 days of the leak from the remaining damages? In addition, what evidence is needed to differentiate such damages? Two opinions issued by the United States District for the Middle District of Georgia offer some insight. If a court finds such coverage exists, questions remain regarding the damages recoverable. Since 2017, several courts have held that the exclusion for damages caused by “seepage or leakage” of water which occurs “over a period of weeks, months, or years” does not bar coverage for damages occurring during the first 13 days.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |