The anti-concurrent clause in a homeowner's policy barred coverage for damage caused by hidden seepage. Boazova v. Safety Ins. Co., 2012 Mass. LEXIS 462 (Mass. May 29, 2012).
The insured had a concrete patio built along the rear wall of her house at a grade higher than the home's foundation. Years later, severe deterioration was discovered in the floor joists, wall studs and other parts of the home. The insured held a homeowner's policy with Safety. An inspector hired by Safety determined the deterioration was caused by the placement of the concrete patio slab adjacent to the wall of the house, allowing water to seep onto the top of the foundation.
Safety denied coverage because the damage was caused by a combination of surface water, deterioration, settling and improper construction of the concrete patio. The policy excluded loss caused by constant or repeated seepage of leakage of water. Unknown and hidden seepage of water would be insured, but only to the extent "not excluded or excepted in the policy."
Loss caused by surface water was also excluded. Given that the patio was higher than the grade of the house's foundation, the water that accumulated on the patio flowed along the patio and seeped into the house. The mere migration of water from the patio into the floor joist, wall studs and other areas did not change its essential character as "surface water."
Characterizing the loss as caused by hidden seepage would not help the insured because of the anti-concurrent causation clause in the policy. The clause said loss caused by the exclusions listed in the policy was excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. Accordingly, the anti-concurrent causation clause barred coverage where a claimed loss was caused by a combination of covered and excluded perils.
