Are There Thirteen Days of Coverage Under a “Weeks, Months or Years” Seepage Exclusion?

I was recently approached by a public adjuster dealing with a full denial after a water loss went undetected for weeks. He was up against a familiar exclusion for constant or repeated seepage or leakage over a period of “weeks, months or years,” but he had an interesting question for me: What about the damage that occurred before the “weeks” required by the policy? Is there coverage for the first thirteen days?

That bit of creative claims adjusting sent me down a research rabbit hole, including back through our own blog. We previously explored this argument in The “Continuous or Repeated Seepage or Leakage of Water” Exclusion. It turns out that at least three courts have answered that question in the affirmative, finding coverage for the first thirteen days of water damage, despite a leak continuing beyond the exclusion’s stated duration.

In Wheeler v. Allstate Insurance Company, a plumbing failure flooded a seasonal cabin for approximately two months before discovery. The Tenth Circuit held that the insured could pursue coverage for damage occurring within the first thirteen days if he could separate it from the later damage. Expert evidence that materials were already beyond repair within the first week helped get the claim past summary judgment. ¹

In Hicks v. American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida, which we discussed in My Insurance Claim Was Denied Because My Water Leak Lasted Over a Period of 14 Days or More—Was the Denial Proper?, the exclusion specified fourteen days or more rather than “weeks, months or years.” The Florida appellate court held that it did not unambiguously exclude damage occurring during the first thirteen days and directed partial summary judgment for the policyholder on that coverage issue. ²

Similarly, in Danganan v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, a Nevada court found coverage for water damage from a rodent-damaged plumbing line despite weeks of leakage. Reading the seepage exclusion together with a provision preserving coverage for water escaping after rodent damage, the court found ambiguity and granted summary judgment on breach of contract for the insureds. ³

So, have we all been reading these seepage exclusions wrong? Not exactly. The more I looked, the more decisions I found holding the opposite when interpreting the same language. In Feldman v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected a requested jury instruction that the insured was entitled to recover for the first thirteen days under a “weeks, months or years” exclusion. The court distinguished Hicks because its policy expressly specified fourteen days, while Feldman’s did not. Although the court remanded for trial on whether the exclusion applied, it declined to recognize an automatic thirteen-day coverage period. ⁴

Other courts have focused on the duration of the leak itself. In McKain v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, the federal district court in Montana held that the duration requirement describes the excluded peril rather than when the damage occurred. Because the leak continued for approximately thirty days, the resulting loss was excluded, including damage from the initial days. ⁵

In Karon v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, the federal district court in Arizona rejected early-damage coverage after a refrigerator line reportedly discharged approximately 1,000 gallons daily. It reasoned that the exclusion addressed leakage occurring over weeks, not merely damage occurring after weeks. Broader language addressing concurrent or sequential causes also informed its decision. ⁶

More recently, the federal district court in Iowa expressly rejected the reasoning of Wheeler and Hicks in Croxdale v. Travelers Home & Marine Insurance Company. Although the insureds also lacked evidence separating early and later damage, the court held that the duration language modifies the leakage, not the loss. ⁷

Where does that leave the first-thirteen-days argument? There is authority worth considering when challenging a full denial, but courts remain divided, and the favorable decisions come with a practical hurdle: proving what damage actually occurred during those initial days.

By the time a weeks-long leak is discovered, separating the initial damage from later deterioration may be difficult. An estimate of everything that needs repair does not necessarily establish when those repairs became necessary. That distinction mattered in Landrum v. Allstate Insurance Company, where the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the insurer after a twenty-five-day leak. The insured offered no evidence separating early and later damage. ⁸ In Wheeler, by contrast, expert evidence supported the position that certain materials were already beyond repair within the first week.

For public adjusters reviewing these denials, it is worth asking whether evidence exists or can reasonably be developed separating early and later damage. The argument may offer a path to recovery, but debating the exclusion accomplishes little without support for the damage being claimed. Given the competing decisions and the potential difficulty of that proof, it is something to keep in mind and investigate, rather than count on.

---

¹ Wheeler v. Allstate Ins. Co., 687 F. App’x 757 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished).

² Hicks v. American Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 241 So. 3d 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

³ Danganan v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:17-cv-02786, 2019 WL 4855140 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2019).

⁴ Feldman v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 373 So. 3d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).

⁵ McKain v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 623 F. Supp. 3d 1117 (D. Mont. 2022).

⁶ Karon v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, No. CV-20-01522, 2021 WL 3419037 (D. Ariz. Aug. 5, 2021).

⁷ Croxdale v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., No. 4:24-cv-00048, Doc. 47 (S.D. Iowa June 23, 2025).

⁸ Landrum v. Allstate Ins. Co., 811 F. App’x 606 (11th Cir. 2020) (unpublished).