A trailer contained a plastic material that is used in diapers as an absorbent material. Water leaked into the trailer and damaged some of the material. The claim was denied based on an exclusion for wetness, dampness, dryness corrosion, or rust. The dispute centers on the term wetness; the insured feels that water, not wetness, was the cause of loss. Had the carrier meant water they would have phrased the policy that way.

Definition

Merriam-Webster online defines “wet” as consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (as water). The Free Dictionary defines wetness as the condition of being wet and wet is defined as being covered or soaked with a liquid, such as water. Water is defined as the liquid that descends from clouds as rain, forms rivers, lakes, and seas, and is a very slightly compressible liquid oxide of hydrogen H2O which appears bluish in thick layers, freezes at 0° C and boils at 100° C. The Free Dictionary uses the following definition: “A clear, colorless, odorless, and tasteless liquid, H2O, essential for most plant and animal life and the most widely used of all solvents.” Indeed water leads to wetness, and the two are not the same.

Sequence of Events

While wetness could be present due to condensation, humidity, or other factors, in this situation there was a leak which allowed water to enter the trailer and soak the absorbent material. Wetness was the result of the water, which directly caused the loss. The wetness was a result of the material that had made contact with the water; the material was absorbent and did what it was supposed to, absorb water. If the material in the trailer had been plastic, wood, or some other material, there would have been no question that water would be seen as the cause of loss. This leads to efficient proximate cause, which is when there are two causes of loss, one covered and one excluded. As long as the covered cause of loss is the primary cause of damage, then there is coverage for the loss. See Concurrent Causation and Efficient Proximate Cause.

Water leaking into the trailer is the cause of loss in this situation; the material did not become wet by any other means, and had the trailer not leaked there would be no damage. Since water is a covered cause of loss, the loss should be covered even though the wetness is excluded.

Summary

When reviewing claims, it is always important to discern what the actual cause of loss is and what the result is. In this situation the damage was caused by water, and the damage itself was wetness. This is different than if the material had been in an area that was damp or humid and wetness alone damaged the material.