WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
CAROLYN LOWRIE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A waterbed is not a "household appliance" under the ordinary meaning of the phrase, and therefore damage caused by its rupture is not covered by the homeowner's insurance policy.
The insured's waterbed broke while being filled, causing water damage. The homeowner's insurance policy covered accidental discharge from a "household…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insurance Policy Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, Judge.
Western American Insurance Company appeals a non-final order granting partial summary judgment on liability in favor of its insured, Carolyn Lowrie. We reverse.
The insurer issued a homeowner’s insurance policy to the insured. The insurance policy included coverage for “[accidental discharge or overflow of water ... from within a household appliance.” The insured’s waterbed broke while being filled, and caused water damage. The trial court ruled that the waterbed is a “household appliance” and that the insurer must cover the loss.
In our view, a waterbed is an item of furniture, and is not a “household appliance” within the ordinary meaning of that phrase. In the common understanding, a household appliance is a household device that does work or performs a task, such as a washer, dryer, vacuum cleaner, or toaster. Cf. Murray v. Royal Indemnity Co., 247 Iowa 1299, 78 N.W. 2d 786, 787 (1956) (“appliance” is “a thing used as a means to an end”). The waterbed was not within the policy definition and there is no coverage.
The insured argues alternatively that the leak can be deemed to have stemmed from the plumbing system, discharges from which are also covered by the insurance policy. Although it is true that the waterbed was filled by means of the plumbing system, it is undisputed that the leak emanated from the waterbed itself, which is not part of the plumbing system.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment for the insurer.