In AKC, Inc. v. United Specialty Insurance Co., 2021-Ohio-3540, ___N.E.3d ___, 2021 WL 4557194 (Ohio 10/6/21), the insured argued that a standard policy exclusion for sewer back-ups and overflows was ambiguous because the exclusion did not contain the specific word “sewerage.” The trial court rejected this argument. However, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed, finding the water back-up exclusion ambiguous. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, again, and he court found that the rule of strict exclusionary construction did not permit courts to ignore the obvious intent of a particular exclusion. The court found that the obvious intent of the exclusion was to bar coverage for damages caused directly or indirectly by water that backed up or overflowed from a sewer. Thus, the exclusion applied to damage caused by sewerage, even though the word “sewerage” was not used in the exclusion.
A Respected Expert Witness And Authority On Insurance Law In The U.S.
“SEWERAGE” NOT REQUIRED TO INVOKE BACK-UP AND OVERFLOW FROM SEWER EXCLUSION
by Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert | Apr 21, 2022 | Insurance Law
- TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FINDS THAT INSURANCE POLICY’S APPRAISAL CLAUSE ALLOWS CAUSATION DETERMINATIONS by Jordan R. Plitt
- THE SPLIT LANDSCAPE REGARDING DEPRECIATION OF LABOR COSTS WHEN CALCULATING ACTUAL CASH VALUE by Jordan R. Plitt
- CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS REFUSES TO EXPAND THE TRIGGER FOR WHEN “CUMIS” COUNSEL IS REQUIRED UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §2860 by Jordan R. Plitt
- DOES A WATER-BACKUP EXCLUSION INCLUDE SEWAGE? by Jordan R. Plitt