Insurer Disputes Coverage for Burst Pipes

Landlord sued its insurer after the insurer denied coverage. Tenants had moved out of landlord's building in early December 2007. Electricity needed to provide heat was then disconnected. Sometime between December 2007 and late January 2008, pipes burst in the building, causing over $100,000 in damage. The insurer relied on a policy exclusion for frozen pipes in an unoccupied, unheated building with undrained plumbing, and asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. The court refused. It was undisputed that landlord called the utility company to reinstate electric service after tenants moved out. But a trial was needed to determine the facts. It was unclear whether landlord used "reasonable care" as defined in the policy exclusion to prevent the damage. The utility company never informed landlord of its inability to restore service. On the other hand, there were gaps in landlord's visits to the building after tenants moved out and before he discovered the water damage.

Billitier v. Merrimack Mut'l Fire Ins. Co.: Index No. 08-CV-6428, NYLJ No. 1202491265591 (WDNY; 4/18/11; Larimer, J)