On appeal plaintiffs contend a “flood” cannot be caused simply by excess rainfall, but only by an existing body of water exceeding its bounds and inundating the surrounding area with water. That would be news to Noah. (Genesis 7:17.) We hold the plain meaning of “flood” includes deluges caused by excess rainfall, which is what happened here. Because plaintiffs’ claim was properly denied based on the “flood” exclusion, we do not reach the “surface water” exclusion.
Also, today's pretty much "frivolous" appeal (remanded for a monetary award) is here.
[7/2/14 update: Even Law360 gets in on the act with Referring To Bible, Court Sides With State Farm On 'Flood' -- A California appeals court on Monday upheld State Farm General Insurance Co.'s win in a coverage dispute over the application of a flood exclusion, alluding to the Bible while rejecting the plaintiff's narrow interpretation of the word “flood.”]
Posts
