Ferndale Development Co., Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--410,72--410 |
| Citation | 527 P.2d 939,34 Colo.App. 258 |
| Parties | FERNDALE DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., and Shroyer Construction Co., Inc., Colorado corporations, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellee. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Costello, Kofoed & O'Donnell, David L. Kofoed, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Yegge, Hall & Evans, Don R. Evans, Robert E. Dean, Jr., Denver, for defendant-appellee.
This case has been remanded to this court by the Supreme Court for a decision on the merits of plaintiffs' appeal.
Plaintiffs sought recovery in the district court under an insurance contract issued by the defendant. The trial court denied plaintiffs' claim on the grounds that the loss incurred by the plaintiffs fell within an exclusion to coverage set out in the insurance policy. On appeal, this court reversed the trial court on the ground that the defendant had failed to plead the exclusion relied on by the trial judge. Ferndale Development Co. v. Great American Insurance Co., Colo.App., 517 P.2d 480. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of this court on the ground that the issue of the applicability of the relevant exclusion had been tried by consent under C.R.C.P. 15(b). Great American Insurance Co. v. Ferndale Development Co., Colo., 523 P.2d 979. The case is now before us again for a determination of plaintiffs' claim that the loss did not fall within the specified exclusion.
The trial court found for defendant on the basis that the loss was excluded from coverage under paragraph . While paragraph 3C contains three separate exclusion clauses, only the portions of paragraph 3C which relate to damage resulting from 'flood' or 'surface water' were put in issue and tried by the consent of the parties. (See opinion of Supreme Court, Colo., 523 P.2d 979.) Therefore, we need not address the possible application of any other exclusions.
The damage for which recovery was sought in this case occurred when a valve on a city water line ruptured resulting in the inundation of the footings and foundations of partially completed condominiums being constructed by the plaintiffs. The only issue before us is whether this loss is covered by the insurance policy. The policy is an 'all risks' policy with broad general property damage coverage. However, the policy contains a list of specified exclusions. The loss in this case is a covered loss unless it falls within one of the exclusions relied upon by the defendant.
Paragraph 3C of the policy endorsement excludes from coverage any loss 'caused by, resulting from, contributed to or aggravated by any of the following--(1) flood, surface water . . ..' The sold question before us is whether the water which caused the damage in this case constituted a 'flood' or can be referred to as 'surface water' as those terms are used in this policy. We conclude that neither of these exclusions removes this loss from the coverage of the policy and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Defendant urges us to apply the relevant terms of this policy according to their 'common sense, everyday usage.' See Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Hemenover, 100 Colo. 231, 67 P.2d 80. However, we find that the terms 'flood' and 'surface water' have been held in various cases to have somewhat different 'plain' meanings. Several cases have held that these terms apply only in cases where 'natural' water sources are involved. See, e.g., Hatley v. Truck Insurance Exchange, 261 Ore. 606, 494 P.2d 426, 495 P.2d 1196. One of the leading commentators on insurance law has stated:
'Flood waters' are those waters above the highest line of the ordinary flow of a stream, and generally speaking they have overflowed a river, stream, or natural water course and have formed a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson
...753 P.2d 229 (Colo.1988); Coxen v. Western Empire Life Ins. Co., 168 Colo. 444, 452 P.2d 16 (1969); Ferndale Dev. Co., Inc. v. Great American Ins. Co., 34 Colo.App. 258, 527 P.2d 939 (1974). The insurance contract in this case provides personal liability coverage as [ ] LIABILITY COVERAGES-......
-
In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation
...are involved," and it concluded that the term was ambiguous and thus did not extend to water from a burst water main. 34 Colo. App. 258, 527 P.2d 939, 940 (1974); see also Ebbing v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 67 Ark.App. 381, 1 S.W.3d 459 (1999) (following Ferndale and concluding that "the......
-
Kane v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 87SC341
...to make such distinction would be to rewrite the terms of the policy). Insureds argue that Ferndale Development Co. v. Great American Insurance Co., 34 Colo.App. 258, 527 P.2d 939 (1974), requires us to reach a different conclusion. We disagree. In Ferndale, the court of appeals found the t......
-
In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Lit.
...the interpretation of the exclusion. In so finding, it distinguished a prior decision, Ferndale Development Co. v. Great American Ins. Co., 34 Colo.App. 258, 527 P.2d 939 (Colo. App.1974), wherein a Colorado appellate court had found the term "flood" ambiguous and found coverage where a bro......