In National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16074 (2d. Cir. Aug. 31, 2016), Amtrak sought the entire $675 million of available coverage from a number of its insurers for damages incurred as a result of Superstorm Sandy. Most of Amtrak’s damages resulted from flooding of tunnels under the East and Hudson Rivers. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurers finding that the damages caused by seawater entering the tunnels was subject to the policies’ $125 million flood sublimit, that corrosion of equipment that occurred after the water was pumped out was not an “ensuing loss,” and that Amtrak failed to establish that it was entitled to coverage under the Demolition and Increased Cost of Construction (“DICC”) provision. National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 124 F. Supp. 3d 264 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). Amtrak appealed.
The Second Circuit held that even though there were three definitions of flood in the applicable policies, the inundation of seawater in the tunnels was a “flood” within the meaning of all three definitions. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the fact that there were three different definitions of the term “flood” in the policies “did not render the term ambiguous.”
Continue Reading Ambiguity And Ensuing Loss: The Second Circuit Affirms The Southern District Of New York’s Holdings In a $675 Million Superstorm Sandy Insurance Coverage Dispute