Analysis brought to you by FC&S Expert Coverage Interpretation, the recognized authority on insurance coverage interpretation and analysis for the P&C industry. To find out more — or to learn how to find answers to YOUR coverage questions — click here! Question: The insured owns an office building with a basement. A water main ruptured directly under the basement floor. The water caused the basement floor to heave, and the basement filled up with several feet of water overnight. The policy is a BP 00 02 12 99. The carrier has asserted the loss is excluded under the water exclusion, which provides, in part, that they exclude damage from "water under the ground surface pressing on, or flowing, or seeping through . . . basements." It has always been my understanding that this language was designed to exclude natural water that seeps up through a basement floor. In our case, we have a ruptured pipe that broke through the basement floor, the water is from the broken pipe and should therefore be covered. The carrier has asserted that the pipe likely broke from corrosion, latent defect, or wear and tear, which is also excluded. However, the policy specifically states that if a "specified cause of loss" results from one of those excluded causes, then the resulting damage is covered. And, of course, "water damage" is a specified cause of loss. We think this loss should be covered. Please give us your thoughts. — Michigan Subscriber