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

For an answer, you first must address questions of facts—was there a slow leak or did the pipe burst? Is there evidence of a ruptured pipe beyond the volume of water? Were there any visual signs of a slow leak apparent to the insured? The standard homeowners policy provides coverage for accidental discharge or overflow from a plumbing or heating appliance; the intent of the policy is to provide coverage for sudden leaks or discharges, and not for things that occur over time, such as wear and tear to a pipe that results in a slow leak. If your policy has an exclusion for leaks existing over weeks, months or years, the true cause of loss must be determined. It is possible there was a slow leak and then the pipe burst, at which point if the leak was hidden there may be coverage for both depending on the policy language, or there may be coverage just for the damage caused directly by a ruptured pipe.

I could find no cases that fit your situation.