HARRISBURG, July 8 — A Pennsylvania federal judge declined to grant an insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a homeowner’s coverage suit involving water damage, finding that genuine issues of fact existed as to whether exclusions for defective construction, seepage, neglect or known loss applied to the loss.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Connor denied Cincinnati’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. The Court held that the cause and specific time of manifestation of the water damage were both material and disputed. The judge cited to conflicting versions of the cause of the loss, and ruled that these conflicts precluded decision on the coverage exclusions.Cincinnati also claimed Mr. Drenocky falsely testified during an examination under oath, but Connor also decided that issue, including the intentional nature of the inaccurate statements under oath, should proceed also:
“Considering the multitude of projects at the house, the complexity of the underlying damage, and the passage of time, a reasonable jury could determine that Drenocky simply forgot about the MacKinney letter during his examination under oath. Accordingly, the court must deny Cincinnati’s request for judgment pursuant to the intentional concealment clause at this juncture. The fraud and concealment exclusion contains a second relevant prong. The false statement clause purports to bar coverage if an insured makes a false statement, irrespective of the insured’s state of mind.”