Earlier this year, an Iowa court recognized that rain becomes rainwater once it has fallen, and it held that policy language excluding loss caused by “rain” – without more – will not operate to bar coverage for water from a burst drain pipe that ruptured during a rainstorm. The decision is reported at Amish Connection, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 847 N.W.2d 237, 2014 WL 1234161 (Iowa Ct. App., March 26, 2014).
The insured, Amish Connection, Inc., leased space in a mall in Waterloo, Iowa, and its merchandise was damaged after a 4” cast iron drain pipe above the ceiling burst during a rainstorm. The pipe carried water from the roof drains to a storm sewer. The policyholder reported the loss on the day after the storm, and its commercial property insurer, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, denied by letter on the same afternoon, stating that the loss was “caused by rain.” The contract of insurance excluded loss “to the interior of any building or structure, or the property inside any building or structure, caused by rain, snow, sleet, ice, sand or dust, whether driven by wind or not[.]” Rain itself was not a defined term.
Amish Connection brought suit. The district court granted summary judgment to State Farm, ruling that the exclusion applied because the water that cascaded from the burst pipe was “rainwater.” On appeal, a unanimous panel of the state’s intermediate level appellate court reversed, and they did so for exactly that reason – the loss was caused by rainwater and not the excluded peril of rain. Read more ›
The first decision was 
The policyholder owned a condominium building in Flint, Michigan that was heavily damaged by fire in November of 2010. The policy afforded coverage for ACV, which was defined in the contract of insurance to mean “replacement cost less a deduction that reflects depreciation, age, condition and obsolescence.” The insurance carrier, Cincinnati Insurance Company, determined that the value of the structure was $1,187,660.38, and it paid that amount to the insured. The policyholder contended that the building was actually worth $1.6 million more, however, and it demanded appraisal.
The insureds, Peter and Susan Horvath, owned a home at the end of a cul-de-sac at the bottom of Bell Canyon Drive. On December 22, 2010, severe rainstorms led to what the husband described as a “river of water coming down the street.” The town’s drainage systems were overwhelmed, and the cul-de-sac quickly filled up, ultimately inundating the first floor of the insureds’ home with 18” of water. The couple were evacuated by firefighters, and the local municipality yellow-tagged the structure as unfit to live in.
At present, the issue will not crop up nearly as frequently as it did in the wake of the 2005 storm because Katrina taught a lesson to underwriters everywhere; virtually all of today’s policies make it crystal clear that storm surge is a type of flood. The policy at issue in this case is a good example, but the Eastern District nonetheless implied that it would have barred coverage even if that were not the case.
On October 29, 2012, the policyholder, El-Ad 250 West LLC, was converting an 11-story office building into a 12-story luxury condominium complex in lower Manhattan. Superstorm Sandy damaged the project to the tune of more than $20 million according to the insured. El-Ad had a builder’s risk insurance policy issued by Zurich American Insurance Company. The contract of insurance had a $115 million overall limit of liability, but delay in completion coverage was sub-limited to $7 million. In addition, there was a $5 million annual aggregate limit for flood loss, which was defined as follows:
The policyholder Sandra Willis’ home was damaged by a fire on June 14, 2012, and she made a claim under her homeowner’s policy with Allstate Insurance Company. The insurer then hired an attorney, David Waldrop, to provide an opinion on coverage. Waldrop did so in a letter dated February 19, 2013, and Allstate subsequently denied liability. The insured responded by filing suit for breach of contract and bad faith.
One of the two principal bones of contention was a claim for over $50,000 for a feng shui consultant. Dr. Patel utilized feng shui when she initially opened her dental practice. Prior to reopening after the fire, she did so once again, and the claim included a “Five Elements Feng Shui Invoice” in the amount of $50,275. According to her affidavits, the feng shui consultant was retained “to come in and change crystals and perform additional cures to help to restore the location to its original condition,” to “restore energy balance,” and to determine “placement of furniture and dealing with forces of Qi.” The policy insured against “direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property,” an0d Dr. Patel contended that the consultant’s services fit within that definition because she had used him when she had originally set the office up. She also sought to invoke coverage under the contract of insurance’s extra expense provision. 
On February 16, 2006, State Farm submitted a quarterly bill for the two policies, payable on or before April 6
Richard Palkimas was insured under a homeowner’s policy issued by State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, and he sustained two losses. The first occurred in September 2006, “when workers negligently used a toilet that had been blocked off resulting in a buildup of sewage, and the breaking and rupturing of a sanitary pipe, as well as the spreading of sewage and fecal matter throughout the home.” Then in January of the following year, the policyholder discovered that “freezing temperatures caused substantial damage to [his] home, including fracturing of the plaster walls and building structure.”