Wilfredo Nunez v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 88 A.3d 1146

In July 2004 Nunez and Campos purchased a Woonsocket home; a pre-closing inspection showed corrosion on the oil heating system and the seller had most components replaced but not the oil feed line buried under the basement slab.
In January 2006 the boiler was accidentally shut off; fuel-oil staining and odor at the feed line were discovered, and plaintiffs submitted a homeowners' insurance claim to Merrimack.
Merrimack’s investigators (Aegis and Taraco) tested and removed the feed line and reported it was "severely corroded," with a slow, long-standing weeping leak that likely predated the plaintiffs’ purchase.
Merrimack denied the claim relying on policy exclusions for loss caused by "smog, rust or other corrosion" and for pollutant discharge unless caused by an insured peril.
Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract; the Superior Court granted Merrimack summary judgment, concluding the undisputed evidence showed gradual corrosion caused the loss, which the policy excluded.
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the loss was a covered "sudden and accidental" tearing/cracking/bulging of a heating system (or at least "sudden" from their perspective), invoking Textron. The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Merrimack.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the loss is covered despite a corrosion exclusion	Nunez: the release of oil was "sudden"/unexpected and thus falls within the policy's "sudden and accidental tearing apart, cracking, burning or bulging" exception	Merrimack: undisputed evidence shows the feed line failed from slow, gradual corrosion, and the policy unambiguously excludes corrosion-caused loss	Court: Policy unambiguously excludes corrosion; evidence showed gradual corrosion caused the loss; no coverage
Whether "sudden" should be interpreted as "unexpected" from insured's viewpoint (Textron) to create coverage	Nunez: under Textron, "sudden" can mean unexpected, so a failure unforeseen by insured could be covered	Merrimack: even if "sudden" meant "unexpected," plaintiffs presented no evidence of tearing/cracking/bulging required by the exception; corrosion remains the cause	Court: Even assuming Textron's interpretation, plaintiffs offered no proof of the specific mechanical tearing/cracking/bulging; corrosion exclusion controls

Textron, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 754 A.2d 742 (R.I. 2000) (interpreting "sudden" in pollutant-exclusion context)
Koziol v. Peerless Insurance Co., 41 A.3d 647 (R.I. 2012) (contract-construction rules govern insurance-policy interpretation)
Miller v. Saunders, 80 A.3d 44 (R.I. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
Lynch v. Spirit Rent-A-Car, Inc., 965 A.2d 417 (R.I. 2009) (courts should not create ambiguity where policy language is plain)
Malo v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 459 A.2d 954 (R.I. 1983) (insurance policies are contracts to be construed by ordinary rules)