He argues under clause '(b)' that there was an 'accidental admission of rain * * * to the interior of the building through defective spouting'.
It may be that the rain disposal system was part of the plumbing system
and that the broken soil pipe constituted defective spouting.
It is not necessary, however, to decide in this case what the phrase 'plumbing system' means or what the word 'spouting' means. The coverage clause of the policy provides that the insurance company shall be liable for 'direct loss by 'water damage' * * * except as hereinafter provided'. Later in the policy under a paragraph headed 'Perils not included' it is provided that:
'This Company shall not be liable for loss by 'water damage' * * * caused directly or indirectly by: (a) seepage, leakage or influx of water through building walls, foundations, basement floors, sidewalks or sidewalk lights.'
The water entered the basement through the foundation wall. Therefore, even if it be assumed arguendo that the broken soil pipe was part of either the plumbing system or the spouting, or both, the defendant would still not be liable, because the damage resulting from the break in the soil pipe comes under one of the exceptions in the coverage of the policy. The water damage was caused by 'seepage, leakage, or influx' of water through the foundation building wall and, therefore, clearly the damage was caused by a 'peril not included in the policy.'
This exclusion from coverage is not a whimsical one. It is well known that buildings frequently have water in their basements and that this usually occurs because of water which somehow has come through the basement walls. It is understandable that an insurance company would want to be excluded from liability for this very common hazard. Of course, it is understandable, too, that policy holders would want to be covered in these situations. To get this type of coverage, however, future policy holders will have to insist on a rewriting of this type of water damage insurance policy. There are, of course, many other water damage situations which are covered by the type of policy in the present case. An example of this is found in the case of Armon v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 369 Pa. 465, 87 A.2d 302. It should be noticed that in the Armon case the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was careful to point out, when it allowed recovery, that the water which caused the damage had not gone through the building wall.
Plaintiff also points to the fact that probably some damage was caused by water from a toilet in a small room in the corner of the rear basement. Damage from water from this source is covered by this type of policy. However, the evidence indicates that practically all, and perhaps all, the damage came from the water from the broken soil pipe at the front of the building. It is not at all clear as to what damage, or that any damage, came about from water from the toilet. The water from the broken soil pipe mingled with the water from the toilet and it is impossible for me to make a finding in reference to damage caused by water from the toilet.
The statements of fact and law contained in the foregoing opinion will constitute the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in the case.
A decree may be submitted entering judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.