469_C314
POOL
COLLAPSE DAMAGE NOT COVERED
|
Homeowners |
Swimming Pool |
|
Water Damage |
|
Brian and Glenda Armstrong
purchased through their agent, David Nipp, a Farmers
Insurance Company of
In July 2003, the Armstrongs’ above-ground swimming pool collapsed and water,
mud, and debris flooded their finished basement. No piping or plumbing
connected the pool to the house. The Armstrongs filed
a claim under their homeowners policy. Farmers denied
the claim, stating that the policy excluded losses to property caused by “water
damage.” The Armstrongs filed a lawsuit against
Farmers alleging various causes of action. The lower court found in favor of
Farmers; the Armstrongs appealed.
The policy defined “water
damage,” in part, as “overflow or escape of a body of water.” An exception to
the water damage exclusion provided: “We insure for accidental direct physical
loss to property . . . but only if caused by . . . [s]udden
and accidental discharge or overflow of water . . . from within a household
appliance.” The policy did not define the term “household appliance.” The lower
court had found that the term “household appliance” was neither ambiguous nor
commonly understood to include within its meaning the Armstrongs’
above-ground swimming pool. It therefore found that the exclusion exception did
not apply.
On appeal, the Armstrongs argued that the term “household appliance” unambiguously
included within its meaning an above-ground swimming pool, and that even if the
term “household appliance” was found to be ambiguous, a reasonable person would
understand it to include within its meaning an above-ground swimming pool. The
Supreme Court of Idaho disagreed. In reaching its decision, the court analyzed
various dictionary definitions of “household appliance” and noted that “household appliance”…“as used in everyday
life refers to devices such as toasters, electric can openers, food processors,
et cetera.” The court noted that all of these items are used to perform a
“specific active function” such as “toasting, cutting, and chopping.”
The Armstrongs
argued that the pool had a “specific function” of aquatic exercise and
recreation and that it therefore fit within the dictionary definition of
“appliance.” The court commended them for their creative argument but did not
find it convincing. The court concluded that a pool is unambiguously not within
the meaning of the term “household appliance” because it does not perform a
“specific active function” like the other items it listed. Because the swimming
pool was not considered to be a “household appliance,” the exception to the
water damage exclusion did not apply. Therefore there was no coverage under the
policy.
The decision of the lower
court in favor of the insurer was affirmed.
Armstrong
vs. Farmers Insurance Company of