Opinion ID: 1980020
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the Camerons' patio is a plumbing system.

Text: The Camerons also contend that the damage to the property in their basement is compensable because their policy provides coverage for the accidental discharge or overflow of water . . . from within a plumbing . . . system and for damage sustained as a result of the freezing of the plumbing . . . system. They assert that their patio is a plumbing system, or at least a part of a plumbing system, within the meaning of the policy, because it was constructed with a grade to channel water to the driveway. [W]ords used [in an insurance policy] should be given their common, ordinary, and it has been said their `popular' meaning. . . . Unkelsbee v. Homestead Fire Ins. Co. of Baltimore, 41 A.2d 168, 170 (D.C.1945); see also Corriea, supra, 719 A.2d at 1239. The first step in the construction of contracts is to determine what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have thought the disputed language meant. District of Columbia v. C.J. Langenfelder & Son, Inc., 558 A.2d 1155, 1159 (D.C.1989) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We agree with the trial judge that the Camerons' theory  namely, that their patio is a part of a plumbing system  would stretch the term `plumbing system' . . . beyond [its] common usage. [5]