"We have an insured that had a dock claim that the company turned down because of the water exclusion whether wind driven or not. We had 80 to 85 MPH winds that destroyed multiple docks in our area. Our insured advised the dock was fine until the boats that were blown out of the hoists hit the dock which destroyed it. Most companies paid these because they said this was a result of wind because multiple docks and multiple locations around the lake had damage. On our insured's policy we listed the dock and hoist coverage under the other structures coverage. I would be interested in hearing your thought on this because I cannot give a good answer to my client as to why they did not pay this. I personally think it should be paid because of the wind peril.”
This is what this non-ISO homeowners policy says:
Water Damage
Water Damage means:
a. Flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of a body of water, or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind;
b. Water or water-borne material which backs up through sewers or drains or which overflows or is discharged from a sump, sump pump, or related equipment;
c. Water or water-borne material below the surface of the ground, including water which exerts pressure on or seeps or leaks through a building, sidewalk, driveway, foundation, swimming pool, or other structure; or
d. Damage to piers, docks, or boat hoists caused by waves, whether or not driven by wind;
caused by or resulting from human or animal forces or any act of nature.
Direct loss by fire, explosion, or theft resulting from water damage is covered.
This exclusion applies principally to WATER damage, whereas the damage to the dock in your case was due to being struck by debris/boats, not damage by the water itself.
Note that items b. and c. exclude damage caused by water OR “water-borne material” but a. and d. do not. The boats that damaged the dock were “water-borne material” at worst and quite possibly “wind-borne” material. If the insurer wanted to exclude damage caused by water-borne material (boats in this case) in the event of surface water or waves or specifically for damage to docks, they could have included the “water-borne material” reference to clarify that. For example, the pure ISO policy excludes the following:
Waterborne material carried or otherwise moved by any of the water referred to in A.3.a. through A.3.c. of this exclusion.
ISO’s form excludes damage caused by ANY waterborne material no matter how moved over water and the exclusion applies to all forms of loss due to water, including surface water and waves. However, ISO’s form excludes damage to docks by specific reference only in the case of freezing or collapse of a non-building.
Finally, with regard to item d., note that the only specific exclusion for damage to docks is if “caused by waves.” As I understand it, the damage to the dock was not caused by wave action but rather what was borne by the waves (or wind)…boats and debris.
Since the damage was apparently caused by being struck by boats, as opposed to damage only from the water/waves itself, I believe, as the policy language is worded, that this is covered. At the very worst, it is ambiguous and should be construed in favor of the insured. Then, if the insurer truly doesn’t want to cover this type of loss, they can modify the policy language to more clearly exclude it.
Hope this helps and that the adjuster will reconsider.
Last Updated: August 14, 2014