Monzo v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. K18C-11-003 NEP |
| Parties | ERIC MONZO AND DANA SPRING MONZO, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONWIDE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant. |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
Upon Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
GRANTED
Dana Spring Monzo, Esquire (argued), and Eric J. Monzo, Esquire, Plaintiffs, Pro se.
Louis J. Rizzo, Jr., Esquire, and Paul D. Sunshine, Esquire (argued), Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter "Nationwide") regarding the complaint of Plaintiffs Eric Monzo and Dana Spring Monzo (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs"), who seek benefits for alleged property damage under a homeowner's insurance policy with Nationwide (hereinafter the "Policy"). For the following reasons, Nationwide's Motion is GRANTED.
In 2017, Nationwide issued the Policy to Plaintiffs, providing coverage from June 30, 2017, through June 30, 2018. Under the Policy, Nationwide was to cover, inter alia, damage to "other structures on the residence premises."1
The Policy lists several exclusions from coverage, including the following:
The exclusion provision also contains an Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause (hereinafter the "ACC Clause"), which precludes coverage if an excluded cause and a non-excluded cause combine to cause damage to a property item covered under the Policy.3
Plaintiffs' home is located in Greenville, Delaware. A stream, running parallel to the street and approximately fifty feet from the residence, bisects the property. On July 23, 2017, a storm (hereinafter the "Storm") hit northern Delaware, depositing, in a short period of time, approximately seven inches of rain onto the property. The Storm caused damage to a pedestrian bridge crossing the stream and to a wall running alongside the stream.
On July 25, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a claim through the Policy with Nationwide, claiming damage to the wall and the pedestrian bridge. Plaintiffs engaged Frederick Roland (hereinafter "Roland"), an engineer, to investigate what caused the damage to the pedestrian bridge and the wall, and Nationwide engaged Sinan Jawad (hereinafter "Jawad"), also an engineer, to investigate the source of the damage.
Roland determined that the damage to the pedestrian bridge was caused by "hidden decay below the normal water level," "supporting earth embankments being scoured away during a thunderstorm," "a sudden burst of heavy rain," and "debris from trees whose weight was too much to be borne by the supporting bridge structure,"6 and that the damage to the wall was caused by "heavy rainfall during a short period of time" and "significant drainage . . . into the drainage system of underground pipes which open into the stream via pipes through the stone wall," which in turn resulted in "a failure of the drainage system" and "a collapse [of the wall] at the area where water was being forced out of the pipes and into the creek."7 Similarly, Jawad determined that the damage to the pedestrian bridge and the wall resulted from increased flow of the stream caused by heavy rainfall, scouring of the soil that undermined the pedestrian bridge and the wall, and debris from trees.8
On November 8, 2017, Nationwide informed Plaintiffs that it was denying their claims for damage to the pedestrian bridge and the wall because the damage was caused by "earth movement" and "water or damage caused by water-borne material," neither of which were covered under the Policy.9
On November 1, 2018, Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action, seeking declaratory and other relief. Plaintiffs argue that they should receive compensation for damage caused by the Storm because the policy provided (1) coverage for "other structures," including the pedestrian bridge and the wall; (2) additional property coverage for biological deterioration and damage clean up;10 and (3) coverage under "Option R," a provision allowing recovery for damage incurred due to the backup of sewers or drains.
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."11 When the movant supports its motion for summary judgment with evidence that there is no genuine issue of material fact,then the burden shifts to the non-moving party to establish that there is a dispute of material fact.12
The Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.13 If the Court finds that no issue of material fact exists, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, then the Court may grant the motion for summary judgment.14
In Delaware, the interpretation of a contract, including an insurance policy, is a question of law.15 A court must interpret a contract according to its ordinary meaning when the terms are clear and unambiguous.16
An insurance contract is not ambiguous merely because the parties do not agree on its construction; rather, a contract is ambiguous "when the provisions in controversy are reasonably or fairly susceptible to different interpretations or may have two or more different meanings."17 Furthermore, a court may not use extrinsic evidence to interpret contract language where that language is "plain and clear on its face."18
An insured bears the burden of proving that a claim is covered by a policy.19 If the insured carries that burden, "the burden shifts to the insurer to prove that the event is excluded under the policy."20
The Court begins with the presumption that the damage to the pedestrian bridge and the wall, which are "other structures," is covered under the Policy if it is not excluded pursuant to the Policy's exclusion provisions, and thus that Plaintiffs have carried their initial burden under the coverage analysis.
At oral argument, Plaintiffs conceded that they are not disputing Roland's findings. Therefore, Plaintiffs agree that the damage to the pedestrian bridge was caused, at least in part, by "supporting earth embankments being scoured away during a thunderstorm" and "debris from trees whose weight was too much to be borne by the supporting bridge structure,"21 and that the damage to the wall was caused by "heavy rainfall during a short period of time" that drained from the roof area of the house into the underground drainage system, ultimately resulting in "a collapse [of the wall] at the area where the water was being forced out of the pipes and into the creek."22
First, while it is true that neither "erosion" nor "scour" are explicitly named as excluded causes within the Policy, both fall within the Policy's "earth movement" exclusion. "Scour" is a term that encompasses "erosion."23 Moreover, "erosion" isa term used to describe a natural process, whether rapid or gradual, that wears away soil.24 Thus, heavy rainfall and the scouring of the earth caused by that rainfall were "natural . . . causes" that resulted in "movement," i.e., erosion, of "earth" surrounding both the pedestrian bridge and the wall.25
Second, the Policy excludes damage caused by "water or water-borne material," i.e., by "flood, surface water . . . [or] overflow of a body of water" or by "water or water-borne material below the surface of the ground."26 Although the word "rain" is not mentioned in the exclusions, "rain" contributing to a "flood" would certainly fall under these exclusions.27 Indeed, to conclude that damage by rain is distinct from damage by flood would contort the Policy's language and the ordinary meaning of its terms. Additionally, the "debris from trees" carried by the stream was ...
To continue reading
Request your trial