Coverage Excluded Cannot be Changed to Coverage Provided
Barry Zalma
Nov 28, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gq_h368T and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g2ijSm2Z and at https://lnkd.in/gUm6gdtu and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4700 posts.
An insurance coverage dispute that involved a commercial insurance policy (“the Policy”) that plaintiff, Winfire Management, LLC (“Winfire”) held with defendant, Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (“Mass Bay”). The trial court concluded that the Policy covered Winfire’s business-income losses that resulted from a sewer backup and entered judgment in Winfire’s favor. Mass Bay appealed.
In Winfire Management, LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company, No. 362960, Court of Appeals of Michigan (November 21, 2023) the Court of Appeals read the policy as written and resolved the dispute.
BACKGROUND
Winfire’s claim for lost rental income following a July 2020 sewer backup at one of Winfire’s commercial properties was refused by Mass Bay. Winfire sued Mass. Bay for breach of contract for refusing to cover these business-income losses. Soon after, Mass. Bay moved for summary disposition arguing that the Policy did not provide business-interruption coverage for losses from a sewer backup.
Mass Bay conceeded that the Policy covered physical damage from sewer backups it explained that taking together the policy provisions in the Business Income (And Extra Expense) Coverage Form (“the BI Form”) and the Causes of Loss -Special Form (“the CL Form”), the Policy excluded coverage for lost business income from a sewer backup.
In response, Winfire disputed Mass. Bay’s interpretation of the Policy. Winfire argued that, because the Policy covered property damage from sewer backups under the Gold Property Broadening Endorsement (“the GP Endorsement”), a sewer backup was a covered loss triggering business-income loss coverage under the BI form.
The trial court agreed with Winfire . Accordingly, the court held, as a matter of law, that the Policy covered Winfire’s business-income losses from the July 2020 sewer backup.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The sole issue on appeal is whether the Policy covered Winfire’s business-income losses resulting from the sewer backup. When an insurance company argues that a policy exclusion negates coverage, the insurance company has the burden to prove that one of the policy’s exclusions applies. Consistent with the rules of interpretation, clear and specific exclusions will be enforced as written so that the insurance company is not held liable for a risk it did not assume.
ANALYSIS
Winfire’s commercial property insurance policy with Mass. Bay provided blanket building coverage, blanket business-income coverage, and blanket personal property coverage. There is no dispute that evaluating Winfire’s claim for business-income losses begins with the BI form. The BI form governs business-income coverage and states that a claimed business income loss “must be caused by or result from a Covered Cause of Loss.”
The BI policy provided that:
"Exclusions
"We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.
"Water
"(3) Water that backs up or overflows or is otherwise discharged from a sewer, drain, sump, sump pump or related equipment …."
The Policy explicitly excluded coverage for business-income losses from a sewer backup. The CL form controls what constitutes a Covered Cause of Loss to trigger business-income coverage under the Policy. Per the CL form, a Covered Cause of Loss under the BI form excludes losses caused directly or indirectly by water that backs up, overflows, or is discharged from a sewer.
The amendment providing property coverage for sewer backup amendment was added to “Additional Coverages” in the “Building and Personal Property Coverage Form.” It was not added to the BI form. That change explains why Mass. Bay covered the “direct physical loss or damage” to Winfire’s property that resulted from the sewer backup. The GP Endorsement did not amend the sewer backup exclusion referenced in the CL form that precludes coverage for business-income losses.
The Policy unambiguously excluded coverage for Winfire’s business-income losses stemming from the sewer backup. The Court of Appeals noted that a court must enforce insurance policy exclusions that are clear and specific exclusions.
Therefore, the trial court’s judgment for Winfire was reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition for Mass. Bay.
ZALMA OPINION
The insured tried to convince the Court of Appeals that when an insurer changes a policy to provide sewer backup coverage for property damage it must also provide similar coverage for BI losses. Although the imaginative and well presented argument convinced the trial court the Court of Appeal read the entire policy and noted that the amendment only applied to property damage and not to BI losses. Failure to read the full policy caused Winfire and the trial court to err and caused the trial court’s order to be reversed.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com at https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe or at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all...
Daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – http://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to Newsbreak.com https://lnkd.in/g8azKc34
Go to Newsbreak.com https://lnkd.in/g8azKc34; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkxD.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
