A Priori Family Office LLC v. Valley Forge Insurance Company, 3:23-cv-01477

A Priori Family Office LLC and A Priori Greenwich Holdings LLC ("A Priori") had an all-risk commercial property insurance policy with Valley Forge Insurance Company for their third-floor commercial office in Greenwich, CT.
In July 2023, after a storm and heavy rain, water seeped into A Priori's office, damaging flooring and fixtures.
A Priori filed a claim with Valley Forge, which denied coverage, citing multiple exclusions, primarily the "water exclusion" for "surface water."
A Priori sued for breach of contract and declaratory judgment on coverage, along with claims of bad faith and violations of Connecticut consumer protection statutes (CUTPA/CUIPA).
Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, agreeing that the core coverage dispute could be resolved as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Water Exclusion (Surface Water)	"Surface water" means water on/near ground, not water pooled on a terrace/roof.	Water pooled on terrace qualifies as surface water under the exclusion.	Exclusion is ambiguous, construed in favor of coverage; exclusion does not apply.
Weather Exclusion	Weather exclusion only applies with concurrent excluded cause, which is not present.	Rainwater entered due to wear/tear, so exclusion applies.	Weather exclusion not applicable absent operative excluded cause.
Negligent Work Exclusion	Not seeking costs for defective drains/doors, just water damage to interior.	Damage caused by defective roof drain/door, so exclusion bars coverage.	Exclusion does not bar coverage for resultant water damage.
Rain Limitation	Does not bar coverage because damage was not to "interior" as defined, nor caused by direct rainfall.	Bars coverage for rain-caused interior damage.	Limitation does not bar coverage for these losses.
Bad Faith & CUTPA/CUIPA	Defendant's denial was improper and lacked fair investigation.	Denial was based on a justifiable interpretation; no bad faith or pattern.	No bad faith or sufficient evidence of general business practice under CUTPA/CUIPA.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Pac. Indem. Ins. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 240 Conn. 26 (insurance contract interpretation)
Arrowood Indem. Co. v. King, 304 Conn. 179 (policy must be interpreted as a whole)
R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 273 Conn. 448 (ambiguous insurance terms construed in favor of insured)
Beach v. Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co., 205 Conn. 246 (ensuing loss clause interpretation)
Capstone Bldg. Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins., 308 Conn. 760 (bad faith and ensuing loss)
Hartford Fire Ins. v. Moda, LLC, 346 Conn. 64 (ambiguity in policy construed against insurer)
Artie’s Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins., 317 Conn. 602 (CUTPA/CUIPA linkage)
Lees v. Middlesex Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 842 (frequency of unfair insurance practice required for CUTPA/CUIPA)