Urse v. Maryland Casualty Co.
Decision Date | 16 February 1945 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 27-P. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
Parties | URSE et al. v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. |
Ward Lanham, of Fairmont, W. Va., for plaintiff.
C. Brooks Deveny, of Fairmont, W. Va., for defendant.
John Urse, Joseph Morrone and William Reese, plaintiffs, are owners of Eastland Bowling Lanes, in Fairmont, West Virginia. They carried an insurance policy with Maryland Casualty Company, defendant, insuring their bowling alley against certain types of water damage. Suit was instituted in the state court by plaintiffs on this insurance policy to recover $13,000 damages, and by reason of diversity of citizenship, the action was removed to this court, where it was tried by the court in lieu of a jury. Defendant claims that the loss is not covered by the insurance policy. On this single issue the case has been submitted for decision upon the policy of insurance and the following agreed statement of facts.
Among other things, the policy insures the bowling alley against "all direct loss and damage caused solely by the accidental discharge, leakage or overflow of water or steam from within the following source or sources: * * * rain or snow admitted directly to the interior of the building through defective roofs, leaders or spouting, or by open or defective doors, windows, show windows, sky-lights, transoms or ventilators", except as otherwise provided in the policy.
First, defendant says that the damage was not caused by rain admitted directly to the interior of the building through defective roofs, leaders or spouting, or by open or defective doors, windows, show windows, sky-lights, transoms, or ventilators, but was from a pool of water which had accumulated around the building; that the damage was caused solely by accumulated surface water entering the building by seepage through the cement basement walls, the doors, and by backing up through the commode; that a large pool of water in the low point surrounding the building is not one of the "sources" enumerated in the policy; and that the intent is clear that the water must originate from some defective appliance or installation as a source of rain admitted directly to the interior of the building. Water damage is defined in the policy as "the accidental discharge, leakage or overflow of water, * * * rain * * * from systems, tanks, appliances and parts of buildings insured against as sources of loss * * *". Defendant cites the case of Poole v. Sun Underwriters Ins. Co., 1937, 65 S.D. 422, 274 N.W. 658, 660, wherein the court said: "To us it is quite clear that the heavy rain which fell, after it reached the ground, was no longer rain, but became water and falls within the classification of waters which is known as surface water, and therefore under the terms of the policy the damage caused to the automobile was included under paragraph C-3, as defined by paragraph K, which covers the peril known as `water damage.'"
Secondly, defendant says that if the court should hold that the water came from a source covered by the policy, then the loss is specifically excluded by the following provision in the policy: "This company shall not be liable for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly, (a) by seepage, leakage or influx of water through building walls, foundations, lowest basement floors, sidewalks or sidewalk lights; or (b) by floods, inundation, backing up of sewers or drains, or the influx of tide, rising or surface waters; * * *".
Since the insurance contract was made in West Virginia we first look to the courts of that state for the law on this subject. We find that the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has clearly stated the general rule of construction of insurance contracts as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Paulson
...a casual or vagrant character, following no definite course and having no substantial or permanent existence." Urse v. Maryland Casualty Co., 58 F.Supp. 897, 899 (D.C.N.D.1945) accepted two definitions of surface water, one from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West " 'Surface water is water......
-
Heller v. Fire Ins. Exchange, a Div. of Farmers Ins. Group
...422, 425-26, 274 N.W. 658, 660 (1937); Riggs Oil Co. v. Gray, 46 Wyo. 504, 511-513, 30 P.2d 145, 147 (1934).9 Urse v. Maryland Casualty Co., 58 F.Supp. 897, 899 (D.W.Va.1945); Capes, 123 Ind.App. at 213-15, 109 N.E.2d at 726; McCausland, 136 W.Va. at 579-81, 68 S.E.2d at 737; see also Vollr......
-
Richman v. Home Ins. Co. of New York
... ... cast upon defendant to establish it. Armon v. Aetna ... Casualty & Surety Co., 369 Pa. 465, 87 A.2d 302 ... The ... jury found specially that the loss ... Los Angeles County, 182 Cal. 392, ... 188 P. 554, 9 A.L.R. 1200 ... In ... Urse v. Maryland Casualty Co., D.C., 58 F.Supp. 897, a ... basement bowling alley was damaged by water ... ...
-
Mateer v. Reliance Ins. Co.
...have not had occasion to consider the import and meaning of the word, courts in other jurisdictions have. In Urse v. Maryland Casualty Co., 58 F.Supp. 897 (D.C.W.Va.1945), where a basement bowling alley was damaged by water from a pool collected outside of a building which seeped through wa......
-
Grand Staircase-escalante National Monument: Presidential Discretion Plus Congressional Acquiescence Equals a New National Monument
...only lands already in the public domain; no private or state land is "added" to federal land ownership. [17] 58 F.Supp. at 896. [18] 58 F.Supp. at 897. [19] 58 F.Supp. at 896. [20] 58 F.Supp. at 896. [21] Proo. Nos. 4611-27, 3 C.F.R. pp. 69-102 (1979). [22] David H. Getches, "Managing the P......