Nj Panel: If your Ton Is Excluded, So Might Be the Unhealthy Water-Borne Substances it Results In
A week ago, a unanimous panel of recent Jersey’s intermediate level appellate court rejected policyholder arguments that despite the fact that ton was excluded, the proximate reason for their Superstorm Sandy loss was the non-excluded peril of harm from “unhealthy water-borne substances” left out through the receding water. In Riccio v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 6181466, 2015 N.J. Super. LEXIS 2417 (N.J. Application., March. 22, 2015), the idol judges recognized that to carry otherwise would render the ton exclusions in homeowner’s policies meaningless.
The insureds owned a house in Little Silver which was inundated by 20”-36” water whenever a creek behind their home overflowed its banks during Superstorm Sandy on October 29, 2012. They initially tried to clean the home themselves, taking out the carpeting and getting a certified cleaning and restoration company. Once the president from the clean-up concern visited the website, however, he told everybody to prevent the things they used to do, stating that water was “very unhealthy and harmful.” He later opined it had become Category 3 water – an ingredient that’s “highly contaminated and may cause dying or severe illness if consumed by humans.”
The dwelling was situated in a place designated like a “Special Ton Hazard Area” through the National Ton Insurance Program, and also the policyholders had maintained ton coverage using the NFIP until 2008 once they compensated business mortgage and weren’t any longer obligated to hold it. They provided claim under their homeowner’s policy, however the insurer denied after tendering a cheque for $975.22 for covered food spoilage and wind damage. Anything of insurance excluded loss by:
Ton, including, although not restricted to, surface water, waves, tidal water or overflow associated with a lake, or spray from these, whether driven by wind.
* * *
Water or other substance on or below the top of ground, no matter its source. Including water or other substance which exerts pressure on, or flows, seeps or leaks through any area of the residence premises.
Ton was defined, in pertinent part, as “a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land area from . . . [t]he overflow of inland or tidal waters[.]”
The insureds place the matter in suit, alleging that although their loss was “initiated” through the excluded peril of ton, the final event that caused the harm and therefore constituted the predominant reason for loss was “unhealthy water-borne substances, debris and materials.” The trial judge rejected that argument and granted the carrier’s motion for summary judgment, saying:
It is inside the ken from the average lay person who ton water that encroaches upon the land carries by using it a variety of contaminants, may it be ground matter, for example dirt, sand or plant life, or potentially hazardous substances for example pesticides, bacteria, oil products, animal feces, or any other potentially hazardous water borne contaminants.
* * *
A Legal Court finds the term “property loss brought on by or composed of ton damage” includes not just damage brought on by water like the saturation of sheetrock or even the displacement of the house’s foundation, but damage brought on by microorganisms or any other particulate matter that flows in to the insured’s property included in the water and it is left out once the water recedes.
On October 22nd, the Appellate Division of recent Jersey’s Superior Court affirmed inside a per curiam opinion. On appeal, the plaintiffs relied largely on Manley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 845 F.Supp.2d 1170 (W.D.Wash. 2012), a situation where a waterfront home on Puget Seem have been seriously broken by logs along with other water-borne debris throughout a storm. The Manley court held that logs and waves were “distinct perils” which losing wasn’t excluded consequently
After noting that the federal district court opinion in Washington condition didn’t have precedential value in Nj, the panel began to differentiate Manley, stating that “the phenomenon of waves transporting logs propelled by high winds” was far for which happened during Superstorm Sandy around the Jersey shore. Within the words of the perception:
Underneath the plain the Allstate policy, the damages the result of a ton are excluded. We . . . accept Judge Perri that property loss brought on by ton damage includes not just the harm brought on by water, but should also range from the damage brought on by toxins transported through the ton waters and left out next water recedes. To carry otherwise provides coverage to homeowners who avoid the cost of ton insurance and keep only homeowners policies, and would render the ton exclusion in individuals policies meaningless.
A Legal Court also observed the ton exclusion barred coverage for water or other substances no matter their source, also it rejected the policyholders’ contentions the exclusion itself was ambiguous.