Could you please review this scenario and the policy language and give us your thoughts?

Iowa Subscriber

We researched septic system design and reviewed the policy language, and think that, in the final analysis, coverage comes down to questions of fact rather than interpretation of the policy language.

 First, some history of the development of the backup of sewer and drain endorsements. They were intended to give coverage when a municipal system failed in some manner, sending water, and possibly sewage, back through the sewer pipe and into the insured's plumbing system. But this particular insured is not connected to a municipal system; he has, rather, a "self-contained" unit. Having said that, the insured should not receive unintended coverage under the "accidental discharge of a plumbing system" peril. Under those circumstances there would be no reason for the backup of sewer and drain endorsement.

So, the direction to take is to see at what point the septic system functions as a municipal system might. From looking at diagrams, it appears that once water leaves the pipe from the dwelling into the system and goes into the septic tank it loses its character as waste water from the insured's plumbing system and becomes something more. Typically a septic tank contains three levels: top is scum, middle is waste water, and the bottom is sludge. It is the middle waste water that is sent out of the tank through a pipe into a drain field. Both pipes should have baffles to prevent scum or sludge from entering the house or drain field. The pipe into the system is therefore part of the plumbing; the septic tank itself and the pipe leading away would appear to take the part of the municipal sewer or drain.

 Now, in this scenario, the malfunctioning toilet flap caused the water to continue to run. (Septic tank owners are cautioned about the dangers of too much water entering the tank at once.) Although inadequate maintenance, mechanical breakdown, and wear and tear are not covered, any ensuing loss not excluded is covered. In this case, that would be both the backup of sewer and drain and accidental discharge.

 The septic maintenance person's statement is that he thought the outgoing pipe was clogged. There does not seem to be proof one way or another. But if it was, then we think the backup of sewer and drain endorsement would provide the only coverage, since the outgoing pipe leads from the system. The "accidental discharge" peril would not apply.

However, if the blockage occurred on the dwelling side of the tank, or if the pipe was so full that it could not accept any more water, then the "accidental discharge" peril would be triggered and the water damage would be covered under this cause of loss.

 As we stated earlier, coverage comes down to the specific facts in this situation.