A recent federal decision from Illinois serves as a useful reminder of something experienced insurance coverage lawyers understand instinctively: ambiguity in policy language rarely announces itself. It must be identified, developed, and proved by lawyers who have spent years studying how insurance contracts actually operate in the real world.
In Vinayaka Hospitality LLC v. Owners Insurance Company, the court was asked to interpret a familiar—but often misunderstood—policy exclusion. The policy barred coverage for damage caused by:
“Water under the ground surface pressing on, or flowing or seeping through… foundations, walls, floors or paved surfaces.”
At first glance, many readers might assume this language is clear. Water below ground enters a building, and coverage is excluded. End of analysis. But that is not how insurance law works—and it is certainly not how experienced policyholder attorneys approach coverage disputes.
Facts matter. In Vinayaka, the insured property sustained water damage after a corroded pipe beneath the building developed a hole, allowing water to escape and enter the structure. The insurer denied the claim, asserting that the loss fell squarely within the “water under the ground surface” exclusion.
The policyholder’s attorneys saw the issue differently. They focused on the phrase itself—“water under the ground surface”—and recognized that it is far less precise than insurers often claim. Does that phrase refer only to naturally occurring groundwater, such as subsurface water, percolating water, or underground streams? Or does it encompass any water that happens to be located below the surface, including water escaping from a man-made pipe?
Those are two materially different interpretations, and importantly, both are reasonable.
The court agreed. It concluded that a reasonable insured could read “water under the ground surface” as referring only to naturally occurring underground water. Under that reading, water released from a corroded pipe would not fall within the exclusion, and coverage would apply. At the same time, the court acknowledged the insurer’s competing interpretation—that any water originating below the surface, regardless of its source, would be excluded.
That coexistence of reasonable interpretations is the hallmark of ambiguity under Illinois law. When policy language can reasonably be read in more than one way, the ambiguity must be construed against the insurer as the drafter of the policy.
What makes this decision noteworthy is not merely the outcome, but how it was achieved. The court did not uncover ambiguity on its own. The ambiguity was identified, framed, and supported through careful legal argument rooted in experience, precedent, and a nuanced understanding of how courts across the country have interpreted similar exclusions.
That work is reflected in the opinion itself. The court surveyed decisions from multiple jurisdictions, noting a split between courts that limit the exclusion to naturally occurring water and those that extend it to artificial sources such as leaking pipes. That divide was not incidental—it was central to demonstrating that the policy language is genuinely debatable.
This is where skilled advocacy makes a difference. Lawyers who regularly handle property insurance disputes understand that policy language is rarely as simple as it appears. Words like “water,” “surface,” and “under” may seem ordinary, but their interaction within a policy creates layers of meaning. Those layers become visible only when someone with the right background takes the time to examine them closely.
Less experienced counsel might read this exclusion and move on. Experienced coverage lawyers ask harder questions: What does the phrase mean in context? How have courts interpreted similar language? Does the policy distinguish elsewhere between natural and artificial causes of loss? And what would a reasonable policyholder understand this language to mean?
These questions are not academic. They often determine whether a claim is denied or paid.
The decision also offers an important lesson for insurers. If the intent is to exclude damage caused by all subsurface water—whether natural or artificial—the policy must say so clearly. Vague or generalized language may not suffice, particularly when policyholders present well-developed arguments demonstrating multiple reasonable interpretations.
Insurance policies are contracts of adhesion. The burden of clarity rests with the drafter. When that clarity is missing, courts will not rewrite policy language to rescue insurers from their own imprecision.
For policyholders and the lawyers who represent them, Vinayaka is another reminder that expertise in insurance coverage law is not optional. The ability to spot ambiguity, support it with authority, and explain it persuasively is often what turns a difficult case into a successful one.
The phrase “water under the ground surface” looks simple. In the hands of a skilled advocate, it became the key to coverage.
Written with the help of AI.
When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 801.641.8304, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net.