“In sum, we conclude that it is ambiguous whether rainwater accumulation on roofs constitutes ‘surface waters’ within the meaning of the policies,” Associate Justice Scott L. Kafker wrote for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. “Our conclusion that this language is ambiguous is confirmed by the inconsistency in the case law, which flows naturally from this ambiguity. As we must read any such ambiguity in the policies in favor of the policy holder, we do so in the instant case.”
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court determined the accumulation of rainwater on a building’s roof does not constitute “surface waters” within the context of an insurer’s “flood” property insurance policy this week, ending a four-year litigation battle over the interpretation under state law.
The decision answered a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In it, the state high court relied on the term’s ambiguity and said its vagueness within the policies resulted in the court resolving the issue in favor of the policyholders, who submitted claims for more than $200 million for flooding damage to a hospital’s basement. This determination will allow the policyholders, represented by attorneys with Foley Hoag and Todd & Weld in Boston, to use the higher limit overall insurance policy rather than the limits of the flood sub-limit coverage, the state court concluded in an opinion issued July 23.
