Our argument is that this exclusion eliminates coverage for ice and water, but not snow. To support our theory, we pointed out that in coverage C, peril 11, ISO specifically references ice, snow, and sleet, thereby considering them different. The company states that ISO's intent was to eliminate coverage for anything similar, and even if they didn't the insured needs to prove it was snow and not ice or water.

I reminded the insurer that in an open perils policy all the insured needed to do was show damage and that if the company was denying coverage, it had to prove that the damage was caused by an excluded peril. Coupled with the fact that any ambiguity must be resolved in the favor of the insured it appears the insurer owes insurance recovery for the damage.

New York Subscriber

Your well reasoned letter says it all.  We agree with you completely; the pool qualifies as an "other structure" for open perils protection, the exclusion dealing with weight or pressure of ice or water does not have any bearing on damage by snow, and it is the insurance company that must prove that the loss stems from an excluded cause once the insured has demonstrated damage to covered property insured on the basis of open perils coverage.

Incidentally, it is our understanding that the pressure or weight of ice or water exclusion is grounded in the insurance industry's desire to avoid the catastrophe exposure to shoreline damage from winter ice build up and the shearing action that is brought on by wind or water moving the ice blockage on shore.