We submitted the damage as one loss, citing the extreme weather conditions as the cause of loss. “Event” or “occurrence” is not defined in the policy, and, we feel, the fact that the various water damage occurred the same evening supports our position.

Initially, the insurer felt the damage should be treated as three losses, as it involved three separate parts of the building. They have since agreed to treat the damage outlined in (1) and (2) as one loss and (3) as another, applying two deductibles.

Our argument is that if the damage had been caused by a windstorm, for example, it would be covered as one event, no matter how many areas of the building were affected. Why would this be treated differently?

Massachussets Subscriber

A

Only one deductible would apply. The policy in question ties the application of the deductible to “and event,” without further defining the term “event.” The insured is then entitled to the most favorable reading of the policy. The deductible is tied to the event causing the damage, and not to the number of perils insured against. Inasmuch as the cause of damage (the “event”) was an ice storm, the fact that the storm damaged the building in multifarious ways is not relevant. To argue otherwise would be to argue that an explosion which blows out a wall and starts a fire which does additional damage would be two events; or, that a fire moving from room to room in a building would be separate events.

We believe the insured is entitled to the application of one deductible under the circumstances.