Case Name: SUNSHINE MOTORS, INC v. NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1995-02-22
Citations: 209 Mich. App. 58
Docket Number: Docket No. 162975
Parties: SUNSHINE MOTORS, INC v NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
Judges: Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Markey, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 209
Pages: 58–60

Head Matter:
SUNSHINE MOTORS, INC v NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
Docket No. 162975.
Submitted January 17, 1995, at Lansing.
Decided February 22, 1995, at 9:00 a.m.
Sunshine Motors, Inc., brought an action in the Oakland Circuit Court against New Hampshire Insurance Company, alleging that the defendant had denied wrongfully a claim for losses caused when the plaintiff’s dealership was flooded when the partial blocking of a drain occurred during a period of heavy rains. The defendant denied the claim on the basis of a policy provision excluding coverage for losses caused by flood, surface water, or water backing up from a sewer or drain. The trial court, Edward Sosnick, J., granted summary disposition for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeals held:
The trial court did not err in holding that the language of the insurance policy clearly excluded coverage under these circumstances.
Affirmed.
Fabian & Sklar, P.C. (by Jo Robin Davis), for the plaintiff.
Denenberg, TuiHey & Jamieson, P.C. (by Susan Tukel), for the defendant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Markey, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting defendant summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10) in this case involving a claim of a breach of an insurance contract. We affirm.
On August 18, 1991, heavy rains flooded plaintiffs car dealership when the local drainage sys tem became partially blocked with a piece of wood. Plaintiff sought coverage from defendant-insurer, which denied coverage for certain losses, citing a policy provision excluding coverage for losses caused by flood, surface water, water backing up from a sewer or drain, or certain other events or causes. After plaintiff filed this lawsuit and some discovery was conducted, both parties moved for summary disposition. The trial court granted summary disposition to defendant, ruling as a matter of law that plaintiff's losses were caused by surface water and, therefore, excluded from coverage.
Construction of an insurance contract is a matter of law for the court. Mueller v Frankenmuth Mutual Ins Co, 184 Mich App 669, 671; 459 NW2d 95 (1990). A court must enforce an insurance policy in accordance with its terms and may not read ambiguities into the policy where none exist. Michigan Millers Mutual Ins Co v Bronson Plating Co, 445 Mich 558, 567; 519 NW2d 864 (1994). Here, the parties' insurance contract clearly and unambiguously excluded coverage for damage caused directly or indirectly by, among other things, flooding, surface water, water backing up from a sewer or drain, contributing weather conditions, or faulty or inadequate maintenance of property on or off the insured's premises. The policy expressly excluded coverage for such losses "regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss."
It appears to us that plaintiffs losses were the result of an unfortunate sequence or concurrence of direct and indirect causes: heavy rainfall creating surface water that failed to drain away be cause, of debris blocking the drainage system. See Fenmode, Inc v Aetna Casualty & Surety Co, 303 Mich 188; 6 NW2d 479 (1942). See also Front Row Theatre, Inc v American Manufacturer's Mutual Ins Cos, 18 F3d 1343 (CA 6, 1994). Plaintiffs claim that the blocked drainage system was "the proximate cause" of its losses misses the point: Whether the blocked drainage system was a direct or indirect cause of plaintiffs water damage, or whether it was the principal factor or merely a contributing factor, the policy expressly excluded coverage. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to assert the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, and the trial court did not err in finding that, as a matter of law, plaintiffs losses plainly were excluded from coverage. Summary disposition was proper.
Affirmed.
Defendant did provide coverage of $25,000 to plaintiff under an optional commercial property extension that provided coverage for losses caused by water that would otherwise be excluded under the policy.