The meaning of flood has been considered infrequently in the English courts Flood is commonly covered by ARPI policies but, on occasions, some policies exclude it or, alternatively, providing the policy to cover it as an additional peril. and the case Young v. Sun Alliance and London Insurance Ltd. [1976] 3 All ER 561, where the word "flood" was incorporated in a phrase with "storm and tempest", it was held not to cover damage created by three inches of water leaking into a bathroom from an underground spring-storm and tempest suggested a more violent event.
In the case of Computer & Systems Engineering Pic v. John Lelliott (Ilford) Limited and Others (The Times, 23 May 1989), during building operations at the guaranteed & # 39; s concessions, a metal purlin was dropped onto a sprinkler system pipe The court was asked to decide whether or not the property owner was obliged to bear the risk of damage under case 22 C: 1 of the JCT Standard Form Because of the damage was not caused by "flood" or "bursting of pipes" within the definition of the case 22. First, the court considered what an ordinary reasonable Englishman would say if asked "What was it that "His answer would have been" the negligent dropping of the purlin which fractured the sprinkler pipe ";
Sun relatives upon Young v. Sun Alliance (above) and Commonwealth Smelting Limited v. Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Limited [1986] 1 Lloyd & # 39; s Rep 121, as supporting the propositions that:
- flood should involve some natural phenomena or abnormal occurrence; and
- "bursting and overflowing" was to be construed intransitively, involving some interference of a pipe from within. (In other words, without the assistance of extraterrestrial factors.)
Therefore, the Court of Appeal confirmed the decision suggesting that the word "flood" proposed the invasion of property by a large volume of Certainly, US authorities have not distinguished between man-made floods (as a result of a natural phenomenon such as storm, tempest or downpour. such as the bursting of a dam and floods derived from natural perils.
Thus, as considering the definition of any phrase within the context of ARPI, a court will:
- look at the context in which the word is found;
- inquire as to whether or not the word has any ordinary meaning in common parlance; and
- look at judicial precedent to see where the courts have already been required to consider the word in a similar context.
