What is the intended definition of "the presence of water"?

It appears the insurance company is interpreting that once the presence of water (that caused covered damages) extends into a period that qualifies as "weeks, months or years", then all damages caused by that water are now considered excluded. we do not think this is the proper interpretation of the policy.

We would like your interpretation of the following policy language, specifically concerning the phrase "the presence of water". We would also like your opinion of the following scenario. Given the information below, and barring any extra applicable exclusions, should coverage for the water damages be afforded?

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis