Insured Fails to Provide Adequate Proof of Water Damage Through Roof
The federal district court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment due on the insured's claims for water damage to a church. Unity Church of God in Christ of York v. Church Mutual Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163204 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2024).
Unity Church alleged that it suffered a sudden and accidental direct physical loss to its church. Wind damage to the roof of the church allowed rainwater to leak into the sanctuary of the church. Notice was given to Church Mutual Insurance Company, but coverage was denied.
Unity Church filed suit alleging breach of contract. Church Mutual answered and asserted a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the water damage to the church was outside the policy's coverage because the damage was caused by rain. Church Mutual filed for summary judgment.
Windstorm or hail was covered except when,
Loss or damage to the interior of any building or structure, or the property inside the building or structure, caused by rain, snow, sand or dust, whether driven by wind or not, unless the building or structure first sustained wind or hail damage to its roof or walls through which the rain, snow, sand or dust enters.
At issue was the cause of the loss: whether it was caused merely by rain leaking into the internal structure of the church, and thus outside the policy's coverage, or whether it was caused by rain leaking into the church after first sustaining wind damage to its roof, in which case the loss was covered.
Church Mutual's inspector concluded there was no evidence of storm or wind-related damage that would allow water to enter the church. Church Mutual's structural engineer concluded that deterioration or defects in the roof system allowed water to pond on the roof. In the expert's opinion, the water infiltration to the church was not caused by wind damage.
Unity Church had no expert testimony, but relied upon its pastor's testimony that the roof damage was cased by a storm and that water subsequently infiltrated the church.
The court found no genuine dispute of material fact with respect to causation of the water infiltration. Testimony that the water infiltration was caused by a "storm" was not helpful where the insurance policy made a distinction between different categories of storm damage, covering one type and not another. Church Mutual's expert concluded that it would not have been possible, even with peak winds during the relevant time period, to damage the roof and that instead the damage was caused by water pooling on the church's roof. Unity Church did not provide any expert witness to rebut this conclusion.
Therefore, Church Mutual's motion for summary judgment was granted.
