Summary
The Supreme Court upheld rejection of an insurance claim for damage to resurfaced roads. Although the material-damage cover was broad, it expressly excluded normal wear and tear and gradual atmospheric deterioration. The surveyor found surface damage from traffic on wet roads rather than flood erosion, and the insured did not substantiate its asserted abnormal rainfall and inundation through the weather record or expert evidence.
Issues
- Whether the road-damage claim established an insured loss outside the wear-and-tear exclusion.
Held
- The general material-damage promise remained subject to the policy’s exclusions. Arguing that damage from any cause was covered did not dispense with the express exclusion for normal wear and tear and gradual atmospheric deterioration. (¶¶ 4–5, 15)
- The insured relied on abnormal rain and water logging to distinguish the loss from ordinary wear. The surveyor found surface deterioration without flood erosion, the relevant rainfall record did not support the asserted cause, and the failure to provide expert evidence was significant. (¶ 12–17)
- These evidentiary findings justified the National Commission’s rejection of the complaint. (¶ 18–19)
Result
Appeal dismissed; rejection of the road-damage insurance complaint upheld. Pending application disposed of.