Moy v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

• Docket Number: Civ. 3:18CV01754 (SALM)
• Decision Date: 21 January 2022
• Citation: Moy v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., Civ. 3:18CV01754 (SALM) (D. Conn. Jan 21, 2022)
• Parties: ERIC MOY and JAQURIS MOY v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

1

ERIC MOY and JAQURIS MOY v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY

Civ. No. 3:18CV01754 (SALM)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

January 21, 2022

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PlaintiffsEric Moy and Jaquris Moy(“plaintiffs” or “the Moys”) bring this action against defendantState Farm Fire & Casualty Company(“defendant” or “State Farm”) for breach of an insurance contract.The Moys allege that (1)State Farm breached its insurance contract with them by failing to pay their claim for water damage, seeDoc. #44at 1-2;(2)State Farm breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the “investigation and adjustment of the Plaintiffs' claim, ”id. at 2;(3)State Farm“was negligent in the adjustment and handling of the Plaintiffs' claim[ ]”id. at 3;(4)State Farm committed “unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of its business[]” in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”) and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (“CUIPA”), id. at 4; and (5)they are entitled to a declaratory judgment that State Farm“is obligated to afford coverage and pay for the Plaintiffs' property damages pursuant to the subject policy.”Id. at 7.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), State Farm moves for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims.See Doc. #76.For the reasons set forth below defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

I.BACKGROUND

The following facts are derived from the parties' submissions pursuant to LocalRule 56(a) and the affidavits, declarations, and exhibits attached thereto.Unless otherwise specified, the following facts are undisputed.

Plaintiffs“maintained a homeowner's insurance policy with State Farm for the insured property;PolicyNo. 07-BB-B969-2”(“the Policy”).Doc. #78at 1, ¶3;see alsoDoc. #44at 1.

On January 10, 2018, Mrs. Moy reported “a potential water damage claim” to State Farm. Doc. #78at 3, ¶7;see alsoDoc. #78-1at 65(“File History Information” from State Farm's internal system bearing Policy Number07-BB-B969-2 and Claim Number 07-2615-P44).On January 12, 2018, a State Farm representative entered a note in the File History Information that Mrs. Moy had reported “there was a broken pipe behind the kitchen cabinets, specifically the line to the pot filler[]” and that “she was not able to see the pipe leaking.”Doc. #78-1at 62.The representative further noted that Mrs. Moy told State Farm that the “[p]ipe may have been leaking for a long period of time[]” and he advised her that “if the leak occurred over a long period of time, the loss may be excluded[.]”Id.“On January 25, 2018, State Farm's claim representative William Bird inspected”plaintiffs' property.Doc. #78at 3, ¶10.Mr. Bird “inspected the area immediately behind and below the [plaintiffs'] kitchen cabinets[, ]”id.at ¶11, and found mold and wood rot on the back of the kitchen cabinets and on the subfloor and joists below those cabinets.Seeid. at ¶¶12-14.Plaintiffs dispute Mr. Bird's finding of “rot and discoloration[]” only to the extent that it “implies the Plaintiffs were aware of the condition[.]”Doc. #91at 4, ¶14.Mr. Bird “concluded that the damage was caused by a continuous water leak from the pot filler.”Doc. #78at ¶15.In his affidavit, Mr. Bird opined that the damage “obviously had occurred over a long period of time.”Doc. #78-1at 68, ¶10.After his investigation, Mr. Bird “verbally informed the plaintiffs that their loss was not covered due to the continuous leakage of water as well as the presence of mold.”Doc. #78at 4, ¶16.

On January 25, 2018, Mr. Bird wrote to plaintiffs to formally deny their claim on the basis that it was “not covered under [plaintiffs'] policy[]” because of the policy language that excluded “continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water”(“the CRSL Exclusion”) and/or the “remediation of fungus[.]”Doc. #78-1at 70, 72;see alsoDoc. #78at 4, ¶17.The CRSL Exclusion, which is set forth under Section I of the Policy, states:

1.We do not insure for any loss to the property described in Coverage A which consists of, or is directly and immediately caused by, one or more of the perils listed in items a. through n. below, regardless of whether the loss occurs suddenly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: ...

f. continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water or steam from a:

(1) heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system;

(2) household appliance; or

(3) plumbing system, including from, within or around any shower stall, shower bath, tub installation, or other plumbing fixture, including their walls, ceilings or floors;

which occurs over a period of time.If loss to covered property is caused by water or steam not otherwise excluded, we will cover the cost of tearing out and replacing any part of the building necessary to repair the system or appliance.We do not cover loss to the system or appliance from which the water or steam escaped; ... [and]

i. mold, fungus or wet or dry rot;

Doc. #78-1at 36.

The Policy contains an endorsement limiting coverage for losses related to fungus:

Remediation of Fungus....

b. We do not cover fungus which is the result of:

(1) continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water or steam from a:

(a) heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protective sprinkler system;

(b) household appliance; or

(c) plumbing system, including from, within, or around any shower stall, tub installation, or other plumbing fixture, including their walls, ceilings or floors; or

(2) defect, weakness, inadequacy, fault or unsoundness in:

(a) planning, zoning, development, surveying, siting;

(b) design, specifications, workmanship, construction, grading, compaction;

(c) materials used in construction or repair; or

(d) maintenance;

of any property (including land, structures, or improvements of any kind) whether on or off the residence premises.

Id. at 13.On October 9, 2018, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk.SeeDoc. #1at 2.The action was removed to this Court on October 24, 2018.See Doc. #1.On January 16, 2020, State Farm filed a Motion to Dismiss the second, third, and fourth counts of plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.SeeDoc. #47at 1.On June 15, 2020, after a hearing before Judge Robert N. Chatigny, State Farm's Motion to Dismiss was granted as to the fourth count only, thus dismissing the CUTPAandCUIPA claims.See Doc. #62.State Farm filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on March 1, 2021.See Doc. #76.This case was transferred to the undersigned on October 21, 2021.See Doc. #97.

II.LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).“The party seeking summary judgment has the burden to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists.”Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon, 310 F.3d 280, 286(2d Cir.2002).

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court“must construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the movant.”Beyer v. Cnty. of Nassau, 524 F.3d 160, 163(2d Cir.2008)(citation and quotation marks omitted).“If there is any evidence in the record that could reasonably support a jury's verdict for the non-moving party, summary judgment must be denied.”Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Hapag Lloyd Container Linie, GmbH,446 F.3d 313, 315(2d Cir.2006)(citation and quotation marks omitted).

III.DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that it is entitled to summary judgment on the remaining claims of the Amended Complaint because the undisputed evidence establishes that the Policy did not provide coverage for plaintiffs' loss.SeeDoc. #77at 1.Plaintiffs argue that the policy language is ambiguous and void as against public policy.SeeDoc. #90at 1.

A.Count One -- Breach of Contract

The parties' dispute over plaintiffs' breach of contract claim focuses on whether the policy language that excludes coverage for “continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water” is ambiguous.Defendant asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment because the language unambiguously excludes the damage to plaintiffs' home.SeeDoc. #77at 10-15.Plaintiffs respond that the policy language is both ambiguous, seeDoc. #90at 3-6, and contrary to public policy.Seeid. at 7-13.

1.Policy Language

Under Connecticut law, “[a]n insurance policy is to be interpreted by the same general rules that govern the construction of any written contract....If the terms of the policy are clear and unambiguous, then the language, from which the intention of the parties is to be deduced, must be accorded its natural and ordinary meaning.”Lexington Ins. Co. v. Lexington Healthcare Grp., Inc., 84 A.3d 1167, 1173(Conn.2014)(citation and quotation marks omitted).The “policy language remains the touchstone of our inquiry.”Conn. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Fontaine, 900 A.2d 18, 22(Conn.2006).

“A contract of insurance must be viewed in its entirety, and the intent of the parties for entering it derived from the four corners of the policy giving the words of the policy their natural and ordinary meaning and construing any ambiguity in the terms in favor of the insured.”Misiti, LLC v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 61 A.3d 485, 490-91(Conn.2013)(citations and quotation marks omitted).However, the Court need not resolve an ambiguity...