Opinion ID: 1989895
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: ground water as an occurrence

Text: ¶ 56. Giuffre also argues that the `occurrence' causing the plaintiffs' damages can be the excessive groundwater on the lot, not just the alleged misrepresentations. He asserts that testimony by an expert hydrogeologist established that the damages alleged by the Smiths were caused by an occurrence because the ground water conditions acting on the foundation wall were continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions. This statement virtually concedes that the misrepresentations did not cause the alleged damage. Instead, the above statement contends that ground water conditions acting on the foundation wall were the occurrence which caused the alleged damage. ¶ 57. Giuffre's argument that ground water conditions should also be considered an occurrence which caused the alleged property damage and made him eligible for coverage is misplaced. As stated above, an insurer's duty to defend its insured is determined by comparing the allegations contained within the four corners of the complaint with the terms of the insurance policy. School Dist. of Shorewood, 170 Wis. 2d at 364-65; Newhouse, 176 Wis. 2d at 835. The Smiths allege that [a]s a result of defendant's misrepresentations and omissions of fact, plaintiffs have sustained damages. Looking at the allegations contained in the four corners of the complaint, the Smiths allege that the misrepresentations caused the damage, not the ground water conditions as set forth in an evidentiary affidavit by their expert hydrogeologist. ¶ 58. In sum, we conclude that the Smiths' complaint did not allege that Giuffre had caused property damage within the language of Giuffre's policies. Moreover, the Smiths' allegations of strict responsibility misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation, if true, did not cause property damage within the language of the policy because there was no causal nexus between the alleged occurrence and the alleged property damage. On these facts, West Bend had no duty to defend or indemnify Philip Giuffre. By the Court.  The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.