|

I have a claim where the insured's building may have had an unknown leak; at some point this leak burst causing a large amount of water to intrude and flood the building. The carrier denied the claim based on the statement from the insured's contractor which stated he removed the flooring from the building because it was rotted. The contractor denies saying this. However, even if there was an unknown leak, at some point the pipe burst, as evidenced by the testimony of the water company.

Is there any California case law that supports our claim that the sudden burst of this pipe should be covered?

California Subscriber

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis