Peerless filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the language in the homeowners policy was clear and unambiguous and excluded coverage for the claim. A justice of the Superior Court granted the motion for summary judgment and this appeal followed.

 The Supreme Court of Rhode Island noted that the policy excluded loss caused directly or indirectly from water damage, meaning (among other things) flood, surface water, and water that backs up through sewers or drains. The insurer argued that this language was clear and unambiguous and that it excluded coverage for the claims made by the Iozzis. The insureds countered that the language is so technically contradictory and ambiguous that it leaves numerous issue of fact to be determined at a trial. According to the Iozzis, ambiguity is present in the policy because there is no exclusion for water damage in a separate section entitled "Perils Insured Against"; instead, the water damage exclusion is included in the next policy provision entitled "Exclusions".

 The Court ruled that a careful review of the policy showed the policy language was clear and unambiguous. The Court said that both sections can reasonably be read together. The section pertaining to perils insured against delineates what is covered, subject to certain caveats; the exclusion section delineates blanket exclusions that apply to the entire policy.

 The Iozzis also contended that the policy, while excluding damage done by water, does not explicitly exclude damage caused by sewage or wastewater. The Court found that the policy expressly excludes water damage caused from water that backs up through sewers and this incontrovertibly includes sewage. The damage inflicted upon the property was undoubtedly caused by a mixture of water and sewage and the policy clearly omits this from coverage.

 The ruling of the lower court was affirmed.

 Editor's Note: The Rhode Island Supreme Court upheld the water damage exclusion as written in the policy. The insureds' claim that coverage existed because the "perils insured against" section of the policy did not specifically exclude damage from water and sewer backup was not convincing to the Court. The Court found that this section listed what type of damage was covered, and the exclusions section of the policy listed what type of damage was not covered. This was clear and unambiguous to the Court, and when this is so, the Court will give the words their plain and ordinary meaning.