The federal district court denied the insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the insured’s claim for damage caused by a water leak, but granted the insurer’s motion on the bad faith claim. Hampartsoumian v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86735 (C.D. Calif. Apri 17, 2026).

The insured returned to her residence to find water on the kitchen floor and surrounding areas that appeared to have originated from the dishwasher. A plumber observed that the dishwasher’s air gap hose, which connected the appliance to the kitchen sink drain line, was disconnected. The insured maintained that the two invoices from the plumber stated that the dishwasher discharge hose had “burst/had come part.”

The insured made a claim under her homeowners policy with State Farm. The policy had a “Continuous or Repeated Seepage or Leakage” exclusion which provided,

We will not pay for . . . any loss that is caused by . . . c. Water, meaning: . . . (9) seepage or leakage of water . . . that occurs or develops over a period of time: (a) and is: (i) continuous; (ii) repeating; (iii) gradual; (iv) intermittent; (v) slow; or (vi) trickling; and (b) from a: . . . (ii) household appliance[.]

After inspection, State Farm denied coverage based on the Leakage exclusion. State Farm’s expert later testified that: “If there was leakage . . . the discharge hose may have loosened over time and leaked prior to completely separating.” If this occurred, “water would be released intermittently and in limited quantities corresponding to dishwater operation cycles.”

The insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith. State Farm argued the dishwasher malfunction fell into the exclusion because when water was released gradually over time, even if the initial plumbing failure occurred suddenly, the resulting damage was not “sudden.” California courts held that a plumbing failure was not a “conceptually distinct event” from the leakage that followed. Thus, even if a pipe burst suddenly, it did not change the fact that the release of water was constant or intermittent, and occurred over a period of months.

State Farm had little evidence about how the water on the kitchen floor was discharged. Instead, State Farm disputed the characterization of the malfunction as a “burst,” and argued that the malfunction was a simple disconnect. But neither the plumber’s characterization of this malfunction, nor the ease with which it was fixed, bore on the relevant inquiry: the speed with which the water was produced. State Farm’s sole evidence that the dishwasher hose leaked continuously was a declaration from the plumber stating that he “observed that the dishwasher air gap hose, which connects to the kitchen sink drain line, was disconnected and leaking a small amount of water.”

But it was equally plausible that the discharge hose detached suddenly, causing the dishwasher to emit 3.2 gallons of water over the course of a single wash cycle. A reasonable jury could find that the dishwasher released a single cycle’s volume of water, and that this discharge was “sudden” such that it was not within the policy’s exclusion.

If the jury believed the insured’s testimony that the dishwasher was working correctly before she left in the morning, there was a triable issue as to whether the malfunction caused sudden water loss such that it fell outside the exclusion. Accordingly, State Farm’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim was denied.

The insured, however, failed to raise a triable issue as to whether State Farm’s denial of her claim was in bad faith. State Farm’s motion for summary judgment on the bad faith claim was granted.