train of events rule in Massachusetts

2011This exclusion means that since surface water damage is excluded, Surabian would be “plainly foreclosed from invoking the train of events rule.” Jussim, 415 Mass. at 31 .

2011Id. at 31 . 5 Unlike the policy at issue in Jussim , Surabian’s businessowners policy excludes from coverage specific losses, including damage resulting from surface water.

2011Co. v. Smith, concluded that an insurance policy that states any ensuing loss “not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered” cuts “across the train of events analysis" because the policy language identifies which ensuing losses were covered and which were not covered. 35 Mass.App.Ct. 417, 418, 420 (1993).

1995Co. v. Smith, 35 Mass.App.Ct. 417 (1993), the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that policy language stating that any ensuing loss “not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered,” id. at 418 , “cuts across the train of events analysis,” id. at 420 , in that the policy language itself states which ensuing losses are covered and which are not.

2011Massachusetts defines surface water as “water from rain, melting snow, springs, or seepage, or floods that lie or flow on the surface of the earth and naturally spread over the ground but do not form part of a natural watercourse or lake.” See Decantis v. Lynn Water Sewer Comm'n, 423 Mass. 112, 116 (1996).

1993Co., 30 Mass. App. Ct. 272, 276 (1991), “between an excluded event which causes a loss . . ., and a covered event which causes a loss in the form of an excluded event.” Where the train of events test applies, an insurer is held liable on a loss immediately produced by an excluded cause, if it was in turn produced by a covered cause'.