Opinion ID: 1980020
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the broken gutters were the sole cause of the damage to the basement property.

Text: Finally, the Camerons contend that the exclusion for surface water does not apply because the loss would not have occurred but for the damage to the second floor gutters. They maintain that the water which damaged their basement property fell from the broken gutters and onto the patio, causing an overflow down the basement stairs, and that the loss therefore falls within the provisions of the policy covering damage from accidental discharge or overflow of water . . . from within a plumbing . . . system and for damage from the freezing of the plumbing . . . system. Although water released from a damaged plumbing system may not lose its character as such when it reaches the ground, see Holcomb v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 52 N.C.App. 474, 279 S.E.2d 50, 55 (1981), [6] this does not render inapplicable the surface water exclusion of the Camerons' policy. Some of the water which damaged the Camerons' property in the basement came from the roof as a result of the damage to the gutters, but large amounts of rain and snow fell directly from the sky onto the patio and, together with the water originating on the roof, flowed down the stairs into the basement. The portion of the water which started in the clouds and landed on the patio, with no stops in between, was, by definition, surface water. The Camerons' policy expressly provides that a loss caused by surface water is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. In Casey v. General Accident Ins. Co., 178 A.D.2d 1001, 578 N.Y.S.2d 337, 338 (1991), a case in which the plaintiff's policy contained a similar provision, the court held that [t]he fact that other factors, such as a clogged drain and a sloped roof, may have contributed to the loss is of no consequence under the language of the policy. The same is true here. [7]