The insured's claim for loss based on theft and water leaks was not covered under the property policy. SJP Props. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97216 (E.D. Mo. July 27, 2015). SJP Properties bought and sold foreclosed properties. On July 13, 2006, it purchased at a foreclosure sale a property in St. Louis. The property was not inspected before or after the purchase, and sat vacant for more than two years. No one checked regularly on the property. The property was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Mount Vernon, effective from March 8, 2006 to March 8, 2009. The policy covered vandalism, but excluded loss caused by theft. An exception for the exclusion provided coverage for "building damage caused by the breaking in or exiting of burglars." The policy also excluded loss or damage caused by fungus, wet rot, dry rot and bacteria or water leaks for a period of 14 days or more. On October 31, 2008, the property was broken into and burglarized. On November 1, 2008, SJP reported to the police that kitchen cabinets and copper pipes and wiring had been stolen. The burglars damaged the property when extracting the copper piping. An inspection revealed that water was discharged from the plumbing system for more than one month prior to the theft. SJP filed a claim with Mount Vernon, but coverage was denied because the damage was the result of "theft." SJP filed suit against Mount Vernon and sought summary judgment. It argued the policy was vague and ambiguous regarding the distinction between "vandalism" and "theft," and should therefore be construed in favor of SJP. Next, it argued even if the taking of the copper materials was a theft, the vandalism loss was covered. The court found the policy was not ambiguous. The policy covered "vandalism, meaning willful and malicious damage to, or destruction of the described property," but excluded coverage for loss or damage caused by or resulting from theft. The theft exclusion appeared within the paragraph providing coverage for vandalism and was clearly intended as an exclusion or exception to the vandalism coverage. Even if the theft exclusion did not apply, the exclusion for loss or damage caused by continuous discharge of water applied here. It was undisputed that water was discharged into the property. The inspector observed that water had been discharged for many months and perhaps for more than one year. Therefore, Mount Vernon was entitled to summary judgment on SJP's claim for breach of contract.
Follow our page in Facebook "Insurance Online". from Insurance Law Hawaii
