Verniero

INTRODUCTION

In denying a claim for water damage to a residence caused by a burst pipe, the insurer in this case relies on an exclusion in the insurance policy for wear and tear. In arguing that the exclusion does not apply, the insured relies on an exception to the exclusion. The insurer claims the language of the exception is unambiguous and does not apply. The trial court agreed. We find plenty of ambiguity, and conclude that the trial court improperly granted the insurer‟s motion for summary adjudication on the insured‟s cause of action for breach of contract stemming from the denial of the insureds‟ claim for water damage caused by the burst pipe. We conclude, however, that the trial court properly granted the insurer‟s motion for summary adjudication on the insureds‟ claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for punitive damages.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. A Pipe Bursts On July 1, 2007 John Verniero and his wife Maria Calabrese left their home in the “early afternoon.” When they “returned at about 7:00 pm” they heard noises that led them “to believe that water was leaking from somewhere.” They called a plumber, Pink…