The Court of Appeals of Colorado ruled that summary judgment in a water damage case was inappropriate when there was a factual dispute about how the water had gotten into the insured's home. The case is Morley v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 465 P.3d 71 (Colo. App. 2019). 

The Morleys had a vacation home in Colorado with a flat roof. A summer hailstorm caused roof damage, and subsequent rain showers leaked through the roof and caused water damage to the home's interior. At the time, the Morleys had an all-risks property policy through United Services Automobile Association (USAA). An adjuster for USAA performed an inspection and found the Morleys needed a full roof replacement. USAA approved and paid this claim as well as an additional payment specifically for the Morley's to repair the interior damage. 

During that time, the contractor making the repairs reported additional interior water damage. Those additional damages required tearing out and replacing the drywall, carpet, cabinets, and insulation. USAA denied this additional claim.