A homeowners policy provided dwelling coverage for loss or damage from any cause not expressly excluded. Among the specific exclusions was: "Continuous or Repeated Seepage or Leakage. We do not cover loss to a building caused by continuous or repeated seepage of water or steam which occurs over a period of weeks, months or years from within a plumbing . . . system."

Claim was made for damage to the house foundation and settling caused by leaking water from a broken sewer pipe. The insured submitted declarations from a plumber, engineer and contractor stating that leakage from a broken pipe had occurred over a period of from six months to a few years, resulting in the damage to the house. The insurer's motion for summary judgment (that the loss was not covered) was granted by a trial court. The insured appealed.

The insured argued that a sudden break in a pipe was a covered peril, that the break that occurred here was the efficient cause of the leakage, and that the damage that resulted was covered. The appeal court noted that the "argument is premised on viewing the leakage and the break as two conceptually distinct events, linked only causally."

The court rejected conclusions reached in prior cases cited by the insured as having no application here. There two distinct perils were involved, each of which could occur independently of the other and cause damage. Here a broken pipe and leakage "are not two distinct or separate perils. Leakage or seepage cannot occur without a rupture or incomplete joining of the pipes. This case involved not multiple causes but only one, a leaking pipe."

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in favor of the insurance company and against the insured.

(FINN. Plaintiff, Appellant v. CONTINENTAL INS. CO., Defendant, Respondent. California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Fire. No. A045652. February 9, 1990. 218 Cal. App. 3d 69. CCH 1990 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 2428.)