Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Comley v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

October 6, 2017

LEE COMLEY APPELLANT
v.
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLEE

         APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE THOMAS L. CLARK, JUDGE ACTION NO. 15-CI-03350

          BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: D. Seth Coomer Lexington, Kentucky

          BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Luke Wingfield Lexington, Kentucky

          BEFORE: COMBS, JOHNSON, AND J. LAMBERT, JUDGES.

          OPINION

          LAMBERT, J., JUDGE.

         Lee Comley has appealed from the opinion and order of the Fayette Circuit Court granting Auto-Owners Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment and concluding that Comley's homeowner's policy did not cover water damage to his house. Finding no error, we affirm.

         Comley is the owner of a residence on Elam Park in Lexington, Kentucky. Comley purchased a homeowner's and personal property insurance policy (Policy Number 96-175-212-01) from Auto-Owners on March 31, 2014, covering this residence. The policy covered accidental direct physical loss to both the residential structure and personal property. In Section 1 - Property Protection, the policy lists several perils Auto-Owners would insure against, subject to several exclusions. For personal property, the policy covered losses due to fire or lightning; a windstorm or hail; explosion; riot; aircraft; vehicles; smoke; vandalism; theft; falling objects; the weight of ice, snow, or sleet; the freezing of an appliance or heating or air conditioning system; electrical currents; and volcanic eruptions. The policy specifically included the "[a]ccidental discharge or overflow of water or steam from within a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protection sprinkler system or domestic appliance" in 2.b. (13). But it specifically excluded any loss to the appliance or system from which the water or steam escaped, caused by freezing except as provided for, and, as set forth in subsection 13(c), "caused by or resulting from water from outside the plumbing system that enters through sewers or drains, or water which enters into and overflows from within a sump pump, sump pump well or other type system designed to remove subsurface water which is drained from the foundation area."

         The policy lists several exclusions in section 3, including water damage. The amended version of the water damage exclusion provides as follows:

a. (3) Water damage meaning:
(a) regardless of the cause, flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, storm surge or overflow of a body of water. We do not cover spray from any of these, whether or not driven by the wind;
(b) water or sewage from outside the plumbing system that enters through sewers or drains;
(c) water which enters into and overflows within a sump pump, sump pump well or any other system designed to remove subsurface water which is drained from the foundation area; or
(d) water below the surface of the ground. This includes water which exerts pressure on or flows, seeps or leaks through any part of a building, sidewalk, driveway, swimming pool or other structure.
This exclusion does not apply to ensuing direct loss to covered property caused by ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.