Filed: Jul. 28, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 10-2811 _ JOSEPH COZZA, on behalf of Filomena Cozza, Appellant v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2-09-cv-02380) District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis _ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 15, 2011 Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: July 28, 2011 ) _ OPINION OF THE COU
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 10-2811 _ JOSEPH COZZA, on behalf of Filomena Cozza, Appellant v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2-09-cv-02380) District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis _ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 15, 2011 Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: July 28, 2011 ) _ OPINION OF THE COUR..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 10-2811
____________
JOSEPH COZZA,
on behalf of Filomena Cozza,
Appellant
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2-09-cv-02380)
District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis
____________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 15, 2011
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 28, 2011 )
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
Joseph Cozza, on behalf of Filomena Cozza, (collectively “Cozza”) appeals an
order of the District Court granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, State Farm
Fire and Casualty Insurance Company (“State Farm”) on claims arising from the denial
of an insurance claim. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm.
I.
We write principally for the parties, who are familiar with the factual context and
legal history of this case. Therefore, we set forth only those facts necessary to our
analysis.
This case arises out of State Farm’s denial of a claim for coverage made by Cozza.
State Farm issued Filomena Cozza an “all risk” homeowners’ insurance policy, which
covered her residence in Philadelphia but contained a subsurface water damage
exclusion. On April 16, 2008, Joseph Cozza filed an insurance claim with State Farm
after discovering significant damage to a foundational wall in his mother’s basement,
ultimately requiring the home to be “shored up” and the basement wall replaced. State
Farm conducted an investigation and found that the wall had collapsed due to pressure
from supersaturated soil pressing against it from outside the house. Water had been
leaking into the surrounding soil from breaks in a drain pipe running parallel to the
foundation wall, four-feet underground. The drain pipe carried rainwater collected from
Cozza’s roof-gutters, fed from three downspouts, to the main city sewer.
State Farm denied Cozza’s insurance claim based on a subsurface water damage
exclusion in her policy:
We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have
occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events.
2
We do not insure for such loss regardless of: (a) the cause of the excluded
event; or (b) other causes of the loss; or (c) whether other causes acted
concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the
loss; or (d) whether the event occurs suddenly or gradually, involves
isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or
occurs as a result of any combination of these:
....
c. Water Damage, meaning:
....
(2) water or sewage from outside the residence premises
plumbing system that enters through sewers or drains or water
which enters into and overflows from within a sump pump,
sump pump well or any other system designed to remove
subsurface water which is drained from the foundation area;
or
(3) water below the surface of the ground, including water
which exerts pressure on, or seeps or leaks through a
building, sidewalk, driveway, foundation, swimming pool, or
other structure.
Cozza filed a complaint in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, alleging
breach of contract and bad faith on the part of State Farm. State Farm removed the action
to the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 26, 2009 based on
diversity jurisdiction, and moved for summary judgment on both claims. The District
Court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm, and Cozza timely appealed.
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review grants of summary judgment de novo,
assessing the record “using the same summary judgment standard that guides the district
courts.” Gardner v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 544 F.3d 553, 557 (3d Cir. 2008).
3
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine dispute of material fact and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. G-I Holdings, Inc. v.
Reliance Ins. Co., 586 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir. 2009).
Cozza advances two arguments in support of his claim that the District Court erred
in denying his mother coverage: (1) State Farm’s denial of her claim for coverage was
improper because the subsurface water exclusion provision on which her claim was
denied did not apply; and (2) because State Farm’s denial of her claim breached a known
duty, State Farm acted in bad faith.
A. Subsurface Water Exclusion
Cozza argues that the District Court erred in determining that the subsurface water
exclusion in the insurance policy precluded coverage of her claim. Both parties agree
that we apply Pennsylvania law in this case. In claims for breach of contract to
indemnify under an “all risks” policy, Pennsylvania places the initial burden on the
insured to show that a loss within the policy’s scope has occurred. Wexler Knitting Mills
v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 555 A.2d 903, 905 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989). The burden then shifts to
the insurer to defend “by showing that the loss falls within a specific policy exclusion.”
Id.; see also Madison Constr. Co. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co.,
735 A.2d 100, 106 (Pa.
1999).
Cozza argues that the exclusion does not apply because the water came from a
burst pipe, and that under Pennsylvania law, water that escapes from a plumbing system
4
is not covered by the subsurface water exclusion. Kozlowski v. Penn Mut. Ins. Co., 441
A.2d 388, 391 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). Instead, the exclusion covers water that comes from
outside the insured’s plumbing system.
Id.
While Cozza is correct in her legal position that the exclusion does not cover water
that escapes from a plumbing system, Cozza fails to provide a basis for her premise that
the drain line from which the water escaped was part of her house’s “plumbing system.”
“Plumbing system” is not defined in the policy. “Words of common usage in an
insurance policy are to be construed in their natural, plain, and ordinary sense.” Madison
Constr.
Co., 735 A.2d at 108. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines
“plumbing” to include “the system of pipes, tanks, and fittings required for the water
supply, heating, and sanitation in a building.” Concise Oxford English Dictionary 11th
ed. Here, the ruptured pipe did not provide water, heat, or sanitation to Cozza’s house.
Instead, it was designed to keep rainwater outside the house. Thus, the pipe in question
was not a part of her house’s plumbing system. Accordingly, the water damage was
caused by water covered by the subsurface water exclusion. The District Court did not
err in dismissing her coverage claim.
B. Bad Faith
Cozza argues that the District Court erred when it dismissed her claim that State
Farm acted in bad faith when it denied her claim. Where the sole basis for a bad-faith
claim is the denial of coverage, there can be no bad-faith claim if the insurer was correct
5
as a matter of law in denying coverage. Frog, Switch & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Travelers Ins.
Co., 193 F.3d 742, 751 n.9 (3d Cir. 1999). Here, as State Farm did not err in denying
Cozza’s claim, the District Court did not err in dismissing her bad faith claim.
III.
For the reasons stated above, we will affirm the order of the District Court.
6
