The exclusion for mechanical breakdown would not apply to this loss. The original cause of loss is the tractor coming into contact with the water, which resulted in the mechanical breakdown damage. No other exclusion applies, and there should be coverage for the damaged engine.

With respect to whether this could be considered a collision loss, the answer is yes. In situations where the water rises around the vehicle, this is typically considered a comprehensive loss, while if the person drives into water, it may be a collision loss. So, in auto policies, when the question of whether water could be considered an 'object' for the purpose of collision coverage, the weight of legal opinion is that water is an object within the meaning of the law of accident insurance policies, and so, an automobile that runs into water can be said to collide with an object. As such, we deem that the same could be true of the farm auto policy.

In Harris v. Allstate Ins. Co., 127 N.E.2d 816 (N.Y. 1955), the insured lost control of his car while driving through a deep puddle during a heavy rain, the car swerving and going over a bank. New York's highest court held that this was a collision and not a comprehensive loss. The Supreme Court of Arkansas in Washington Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Ryburn, 311 S.W.2d 302 (Ark. 1958) found that the insured could recover for water damage even though he did not have comprehensive coverage. The insured's truck hit a slick place in the highway and the driver lost control, running off the highway and hitting a small hill. The truck bounced off the hill and plunged into a drainage ditch, where it settled in water that completely submerged the motor. There was damage to the car body and the radiator, and the motor was almost completely ruined; the water damage to the motor constituted most of the claim for damages. The insurer argued that coverage would have fallen under comprehensive insurance, but the insured had bought only collision coverage. The insurer relied on policy language found in the comprehensive section of the policy that declared that water and flood loss "shall not be deemed loss caused by collision or upset." The court rejected the application of this language to the collision section of the policy, saying that the insurer could have added the same language to the collision section if it had meant to limit coverage for water damage to comprehensive coverage only.

In support of its position, the Arkansas Supreme Court took note of a case from Oregon—Ringo v. Automobile Ins. Co., 22 P.2d 887 (Or. 1933)—and the legal comment quoted in that case. This quote is the basis for our analysis: "the weight of opinion is that water and land are objects within the meaning of the law of accident insurance policies, and an auto that runs into either or both collides with an object" (Simpson on The Law Relating to Automobile Insurance 2d).