Opinion ID: 1534985
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Sump Pump Rider

Text: When Chase obtained her homeowners insurance, she purchased an endorsement that removed a specific water damage exclusion in the basic policy [10] and added a so-called sump pump rider. That rider reads, in pertinent part, as follows: We cover accidental direct physical loss caused by water from outside the plumbing system that enters through sewers or drains, or water which enters into and overflows from within a sump pump, sump pump well or other type system designed to remove subsurface water which is drained from the foundation area. . . . All other policy provisions apply. Chase contends that the plain language of this rider indicates that it covers the insured against all property damage sustained should the pump fail to operate properly, which is what occurred when her sump pump failed to remove the water that accumulated in the crawl space beneath her house and caused the supporting soil to flow away from the foundation. This contention is too sweeping. While the endorsement removed a specific water damage exclusion in the policy, it specified that [a]ll other policy provisions apply. This can only mean that the earth movement exclusion (and other exclusions not preempted by the endorsement) remained in effect. Hence, although the failure of the sump pump was a covered event, the presence of earth movement an excluded eventin the chain of causation operated to exclude coverage under the policy. Accord, Toumayan, 970 S.W.2d at 825-26. Chase additionally argues that if the sump pump rider does not cover her loss, the additional coverage it purports to provide is illusory because some excluded event would always preclude coverage. At oral argument, State Farm's counsel stated in response to this argument that the rider covers a range of damage to floors, carpets, and other parts of the house caused by water seepage attendant upon the failure of a sump pump. While the additional coverage afforded by the rider may be limited, we cannot say that it is non-existent or de minimis, and thus we are not prepared to hold that the failure of the endorsement to override the earth movement exclusion is unconscionable.