In Boughan v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Co., No. 1-04-57, 2005 WL 126781 (Ohio App. Jan. 24, 2005), an Ohio appeals court found that damage caused to a home due to faulty brickwork was not covered under a homeowners policy.

 

Richard and Jennifer Boughan noticed that the brick on their home was flaking. They contacted their homeowners insurer, Nationwide, and were told over the phone that the damage was not covered. After several more phone calls to Nationwide, a claims representative was sent to the home and, without inspecting the brick, again said the damage was not covered. Eventually, the same representative returned to inspect the home, and Nationwide formally denied the claim.

 

The Boughans hired a bricklayer to repair the brick. They later noticed some structural problems in their home such as sagging floors and cracking drywall. They reported the problems to their new homeowners insurer, Erie Insurance Company. Erie inspected the home and determined that the structural damage was caused by the water infiltration through the faulty brickwork. Erie denied coverage for the damage, stating that it occurred prior to the inception of their policy.

 

The homeowners again contacted Nationwide and were denied coverage. They brought suit against Nationwide. The trial court ruled that “the damage to the home was specifically excluded under the required amendatory endorsement to the homeowner's policy.”

 

On appeal, the Boughans said that the damage was a covered peril, and the lower court erred in granting Nationwide summary judgment.

 

The court, however, agreed with the lower court that the damage was excluded. The Boughans argued that the policy excluded “continuous and repeated seepage or leakage of water or steam over a period of time from a heating, air conditioning, or automatic protective sprinkler system; household appliance; or plumbing system.” They contended that the water seepage did not come from those listed systems, but through cracks in the brick. Therefore, they reasoned that the loss was not excluded.

 

The court, though, pointed out that the next exclusion in the policy excluded “direct physical loss to property” when caused by “deterioration…latent defect…wet or dry rot…settling, cracking.” While the homeowners claimed that water seepage through the brick caused the structural damage, the court stated, “Even if we grant Appellants' argument that the water seepage is the underlying cause of the rotting floorboards, the water seepage occurred because of 'deterioration,' 'latent defect,' or 'settling, cracking…of [the] foundation [or] walls…'” Thus, the court found that the loss was excluded.