Aetna Fire Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Crawley
| Citation | 207 S.E.2d 666,132 Ga.App. 181 |
| Decision Date | 19 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 49382,No. 2,49382,2 |
| Parties | AETNA FIRE UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. Marvin H. CRAWLEY et al |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Webb, Fowler & Tanner, W. Howard Fowler, J. L. Edmondson, Lawrenceville, for appellant.
Cobb, Blandford & Werbin, John L. Blandford, Chamblee, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is an appeal by Aetna, insurer of the plaintiff Crawley under a homeowner's insurance contract, from the denial of its motion for summary judgment. Crawley sued Aetna and a building contractor, Gooch, in two counts for water damage to his home. The pleadings and evidence on the motion for summary judgment establish the following: Crawley owned a home on Hammond Drive at the bottom of a hill. Gooch was building a house on the same street and uphill from the plaintiff's home. An excavation had been made in order to tap on the sewerage system of the new house to the main county sewer line which ran under the street. During a period of heavy rainfall the original excavation filled with water from surface drainage. On July 27 and again on August 5, 1972, water from this sewer line entered the plaintiff's house through his toilets, shower, tub, and washing machine drain, and flooded the main floor of the house with some six to eight inches of water, mud, and slime. It was eventually discovered that when the original county sewer main had been installed some years previously a tap on the line had been left open for future connection to a lot across the street from Gooch's construction and about five feet from the excavation and tap-in to the new construction; that when the excavation was made and became filled with rain water, this water found its way into the open tap and sewer line, creating tremendous pressure, and on reaching its lowest level at the plaintiff's home entered through his appliance connections, at times shooting up some three feet into the air, and doing several thousand dollars worth of damage. Held:
1. The defendant's insurance policy contains the following pertinent provisions: Perils insured against include 'accidental discharge or overflow of water . . . from within a plumbing . . . system or from within a domestic appliance, including the cost of tearing out and replacing any part of the building covered necessary to effect repairs to the system or appliance from which the water . . . escapes, but excluding loss': from seepage or leaking over a period of time, or if the building has been vacant over 30 days, or to the appliance system itself from which he water escaped, or if the escape is caused by freezing.
Specific losses are excluded if 'caused by, resulting from, contributed to or aggravated by' (a) flood, surface water, waves, tidal water or tidal wave, overflow of streams or other bodies of water or spray from any of the foregoing, all whether driven by wind or not; (b) water which backs up through sewers or drains; or (c) water below the surface of the ground including that which exerts pressure on or flows, seeps or leaks through sidewalks, driveways, foundations, walls or floors.'
The construction of contracts is for the court; if ambiguous and uncertain in meaning it is to be resolved against the party preparing the instrument. Code § 20-704(5); Johnson v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 154 Ga. 653(1), 115 S.E. 14. Let us take the insuring agreement first. Water was discharged into the plaintiff's home from his plumbing system and his domestic appliances. The loss did not result from seepage or leakage over a period of time. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Paulson
...a natural body of water, and which is lost by evaporation, percolation, or natural drainage.' " Aetna Fire Underwriters Insurance Company v. Crawley, 132 Ga.App. 181, 207 S.E.2d 666, 668 (1974) states that "surface "is used as a part of a series of contingencies all of which have in common ......
-
Hous. Enter. Ins. Co. v. Amtrust Ins. Co. of Kan., Inc.
...of the prevailing industry custom. 465 F.Supp.2d at 1295 ; O.C.G.A. § 13–2–2(3), (5) ; see Aetna Fire Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Crawley , 132 Ga.App. 181,207 S.E.2d 666, 668 (1974) (following statutory direction to construe ambiguous contract "against the party preparing the instrument"). Ba......
-
Cross Queen, Inc. v. Director, Fed. Emergency, Civ. No. 144/1979.
...waters from rain, springs or melting snows which lie or flow on the surface of the earth."); Aetna Fire Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Crawley, 132 Ga. App. 181, 207 S.E.2d 666, 668 (Ga.1974) (where homeowner's insurance policy insured against damage by surface waters, the policy comprehended dam......
-
Crocker v. American Nat. General Ins. Co.
...it could be extended to water on the roof of a home if interpreted as ANGIC proposes. But see Aetna Fire Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Crawley, 132 Ga.App. 181, 207 S.E.2d 666, 668 (1974) (majority of cases apply "surface water" term strictly to water on surface of ground and not to rainwater fa......