The highest court in Massachusetts has ruled that rainwater accumulation on roofs of buildings does not constitute “surface waters” within the meaning of “flood” in property insurance policies.
The court found that the term “surface waters” in policies is ambiguous and the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of policyholders who sought to have the surface water damage to their hospital payable under their policies’ higher overall policy limits rather than the lower flood coverage sublimits.
“In the instant case, neither the specific policy language nor the insurance policy as a whole directly addresses whether surface water includes rainwater accumulating on the surface of a roof,” the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) stated in an opinion written by Judge Scott L. Kafker.
The SJC further found that the lack of a clear definition is confirmed by the lack of consistency of interpretation in the case law regarding whether the term “surface waters” inclu