The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department has found that a lower court erred by not awarding partial summary judgment to plaintiffs in an insurance coverage dispute. The case arose from water damage due to the plumbing system freezing because the term "reasonable care" as used in the homeowner's policy was ambiguous, and the "unoccupied home" exclusion relied on by defendant did not unambiguously apply; plaintiffs' used reasonable, albeit unsuccessful, efforts to maintain the heat in their seasonal home.

The McAleaveys owned a seasonal lake house that they rarely used and which had been on the market to sell for over a year. With respect to structures coverage, their homeowners policy with Chautauqua Patrons Insurance Company (CPIC) contained this exclusion:

1. Freezing, Discharge, Leakage or Overflow -Unoccupied Residence-If the residence is vacant, unoccupied (including temporary absence) or under construction and unoccupied, the insured must take reasonable care to:
   1. maintain heat in the building; or
   2. shut off the water supply and completely empty liquids from any plumbing, heating or air-conditioning system, water heater or domestic appliance.

   If an insured fails to do this, we do not pay for loss caused by freezing or the resulting discharge, leakage, or overflow from such system, water heater or domestic appliance.

More than 40 days after Mr. McAleavey was last inside the house to check on things, on February 24, 2018, the McAleaveys received word that a passerby had reported seeing water coming out of the house's front door.  Following its investigation of the reported loss and related claims (during which it was learned that the furnace's circulating pump had failed, causing an upstairs toilet tank to freeze and burst, flooding the home), CPIC denied coverage based on the policy's freezing exclusion.