Website design By BotEap.comFloods are usually covered by ARPI policies, but occasionally some policies exclude them or, alternatively, give the client the option to extend the policy to cover them as an additional risk. The meaning of flood has infrequently been considered in English courts and courts must first consider the meaning of flood in the context of the policy as a whole. In the case Young v. Sun Alliance and London Insurance Ltd. [1976] 3 All ER 561, where the word “flood” was incorporated into a sentence with “storm and tempest”, was held not to cover damage caused by three inches of water seeping into a bath from a subterranean storm of spring and storm suggested a more violent event.

Website design By BotEap.comIn the case of Computer Engineering and Systems Pic c. John Lelliott (Ilford) Limited and Others (The Times, 23 May 1989), during construction operations on the insured’s premises, a metal strap was dropped onto a sprinkler system pipe. The pipeline was damaged, leaking water which in turn damaged the insured’s property. The court was asked to decide whether or not the property owner was required to bear the risk of damage under clause 22C:1 of the JCT Construction Contract Standard Form (1980 Edition) because the damage was not caused by ” flood” or “burst”. of pipes” within the definition of clause 22. First, the court considered what an ordinary Englishman would say if asked “What caused the damage?”. His answer would have been “the fall negligence of the belt that fractured the sprinkler pipe”;

Website design By BotEap.comAs a result of the lack of direct case law, the court referred to several insurance cases involving the term “flood”*. It related to Young v. Sun Alliance (above) and Commonwealth Smelting Limited v. Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Limited. [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 121, in support of proposals that:

Website design By BotEap.com– the flood must involve some natural phenomenon or abnormal event; Y

Website design By BotEap.com– “burst and overflow” were to be interpreted intransitively, implying some interruption of a pipeline from within. (In other words, without the help of extraneous factors.)

Website design By BotEap.comTherefore, damage to the sprinkler system does not constitute a flood or a bursting or overflow of water from tanks, fixtures, or pipes. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision suggesting that the word “flood” suggests the invasion of property by a large volume of water caused by a rapid accumulation or sudden release of water from an external source, usually, but not necessarily, as result of a natural phenomenon such as storm, tempest or downpour. Certainly, US authorities have not distinguished between man-made floods (such as a dam burst) and floods resulting from natural hazards.

Website design By BotEap.comTherefore, when considering the definition of any phrase within the context of ARPI, a court:

Website design By BotEap.com– look at the context in which the word is found;

Website design By BotEap.com– ask whether or not the word has any ordinary meaning in common language; Y

Website design By BotEap.com– look at judicial precedents to see where courts have previously been required to consider the word in a similar context.