On Wednesday, June 24, 2026, Foran Glennon Shareholders Thomas Orlando and Matthew Ponzi obtained a decision from the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirming the summary judgment in a homeowners insurance coverage dispute. The appellate court ruling determined that Foran Glennon’s client’s policy language was clear and unambiguous in excluding coverage for all losses caused by a water leak lasting more than fourteen days, rejecting the plaintiff’s claim.
Case Background
A neighbor alerted the insured homeowner of signs of a water leak at the Iowa home as the homeowners had left the state to stay with their daughter approximately two and a half months prior.
The homeowner shut off the home’s water and reported the leak to the insurer. The following inspection showed a pipe busted, resulting in a significant leak that rendered the house uninhabitable. The insurer determined the leak lasted for about one month and denied the claim, as the policy contained an Iowa-specific endorsement that excluded coverage for loss caused by “constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water or steam … that occurs over a period of weeks, months, or years.” Notably, this specific language replaced previous generic policy wording that noted a period of 14 days or more.
The homeowner subsequently filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith. Both parties moved for summary judgment disputing the interpretation of the policy, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted the insurer’s motions for both claims. Because the leak lasted longer than 14 days, the court concluded the policy did not provide coverage, and the insurer did not act in bad faith.
The Appeal
The homeowners appealed with three arguments:
1. The policy should cover the full damage;
2. In the alternative, the policy at least covers damage that occurred within the first 13 days of the leak; and
3. In either case, the insurer’s denial was in bad faith.
In support of their argument for full coverage, the insureds offered three points about the ambiguity of the policy language:
1. Even if the leak lasted several weeks, the loss was caused by the sudden burst of a pipe.
2. The exclusion applies to a longer unspecific period of time after 14 days.
3. The Iowa endorsement must offer coverage beyond the original policy language.
Appellate Decision
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the Iowa-specific endorsement language unambiguously excludes coverage of all losses caused by a leak lasting more than 14 days, noting:
- The policy language introduced a descriptive phrase that modified the sources of water damage, not the term “loss.”
- The “weeks” construction avoids contradicting “months or years.”
- There is no reason to think that an amendment must always expand coverage rather than reduce coverage.
The court further affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s bad-faith denial of coverage claim, finding that the absence of coverage foreclosed the claim, as coverage is a prerequisite under Iowa law.
Tom concentrates his practice in insurance and appellate litigation, with experience in both insurance and general civil matters. He has handled appeals in state and federal courts nationwide and is well-versed in coverage disputes involving property, liability, and a range of commercial and personal insurance issues.
Matt concentrates his practice in insurance coverage and commercial litigation, specifically in the analysis and litigation of commercial property, liability, and reinsurance claims. Clients trust his extensive trial experience at both the federal and state levels when faced with challenging litigation matters.