A federal judge was asked to decide whether the entry of water in a plaintiff's home should be covered when a policy contains an exclusion for damage attributable to inundation. Plaintiffs claimed that the exclusion was "ambiguous" and therefore unenforceable. The court concluded that the exclusion is valid and covers "wind-driven" or "storm surge" damage. Andrew G. Simpson, Jr., Insurance Journal 04/17/2006 Read Article: Insurance Journal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment