Flood-Resulting Sewer Backups Fall Within Flood Exclusions Despite Sewer-Backup Extensions (and Metadata Can Defeat “Self-Serving” Causation Proof at Summary Judgment)

I. Introduction

This Sixth Circuit decision arises from a severe June 2021 rainstorm in Dearborn, Michigan, that overwhelmed the municipal sewer system and flooded the basement of Express Jewelry Enterprises, Inc. (d/b/a Haks Jewelry). Express Jewelry sought coverage from its insurer, National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, for water damage to (1) the basement and (2) the store’s main floor.

The key dispute was not whether water caused damage, but whether the policy’s coverage extension for sewer/drain backup was eliminated by a carveout when that backup was “caused by or is the result of” a “flood,” defined as “a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas.” A second dispute concerned causation of the main-floor damage: whether water rose from the flooded basement (excluded) or entered through wind-created wall damage allowing rain into the building (potentially covered under the policy’s rain/wind-driven provision).

The district court granted summary judgment to National Fire. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that (a) the basement loss fell within the flood carveout to the sewer-backup extension and (b) Express Jewelry failed to create a genuine fact issue on a wind-created opening because its key proof (photos/video) was undermined by unrefuted metadata.

II. Summary of the Opinion

A. Basement

The court concluded the sewer/drain backup that flooded the basement was “caused by or is the result of” a “flood” as defined in the policy, because extraordinary rainfall produced inundation of normally dry areas, overwhelming the sewer system and causing the backup. The flood carveout therefore barred coverage despite the sewer-backup coverage extension.

B. Main floor

The court held Express Jewelry did not meet its burden to show a covered cause of loss. Evidence from National Fire supported that water reached the main floor from the basement (elevator mechanism), not from rain entering through wind damage. Express Jewelry’s contrary theory relied on photos/video allegedly from June, but National Fire’s metadata analysis showed they were created in December and used iPhone software not released until October. With only “self-serving” testimony to contradict that showing, Express Jewelry could not defeat summary judgment.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The panel relied on a familiar sequence of federal summary-judgment authorities, plus Michigan contract/insurance interpretation cases, to frame the dispute and allocate burdens. The cited cases influenced the outcome in the following ways:

1. Summary judgment framework (federal)

• Delek US Holdings, Inc. v. United States (quoting Fisher v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.): supplied the standard of review (de novo) and the requirement to view evidence in the nonmovant’s favor—important because the court emphasized it applied those pro-nonmovant lenses yet still found no genuine dispute.
• Celotex Corp. v. Catrett: provided the core Rule 56 principle that summary judgment is mandatory when the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element on which it bears the burden at trial. This was central to the main-floor claim: Express Jewelry bore the burden to prove coverage and failed to produce reliable evidence of wind-created openings.
• Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. (quoting First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co.): reinforced that the nonmovant must present evidence on which a reasonable jury could rely; implausible or unsupported factual accounts cannot create a triable issue.
• Davis v. Gallagher; Viet v. Le (quoting Alexander v. CareSource): supplied the Sixth Circuit’s articulation that “self-serving testimony” that is “blatantly and demonstrably false,” or conclusory statements without supporting facts, will not defeat summary judgment. The court used these cases to explain why deposition testimony insisting the media was created in June could not overcome unrefuted metadata and corroborating circumstances.

2. Michigan law on interpreting insurance policies

• Tooling, Mfg. & Techs. Ass'n v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.: supplied the choice-of-law anchor—Michigan law controlled.
• McDonald v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co.: established that ordinary contract-interpretation principles govern insurance policies in Michigan.
• Kyocera Corp. v. Hemlock Semiconductor, LLC (quoting Mahnick v. Bell Co.): emphasized enforcing unambiguous contract language as written, without resort to extrinsic evidence.
• Port Huron Educ. Ass'n, MEA/NEA v. Port Huron Area Sch. Dist.: reinforced the threshold inquiry—whether policy language is ambiguous.
• Solomon v. Royal Maccabees Life Ins. Co.: allocated the burden of proof—the insured must show the policy covers the damage. This burden allocation did work in both parts of the case: it positioned Express Jewelry to prove a covered cause and to overcome exclusions.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. The basement loss: “flood” as the causal driver of the sewer backup

The court’s reasoning proceeded from policy text, not labels. Express Jewelry purchased a sewer/drain backup extension, but that extension contained a carveout: no coverage if the “emanation of water from a sewer or drain” was “caused by or is the result of” a “flood.” The policy’s flood definition focused on external conditions—“inundation of normally dry land areas”—not on whether water occupied a particular engineered structure (like a sewer).

On the record (7.5 inches of rain; sewer designed for ~3 inches/day; pooling in normally dry areas; backup into the premises), the court found a straightforward causal chain:

• Extraordinary rainfall produced a temporary inundation of normally dry land areas (a “flood” as defined).
• That inundation overwhelmed the municipal sewer system.
• The overwhelmed sewer system caused the drain backup into the store’s basement.
• The flood carveout therefore applied, excluding coverage for the basement damage.

Express Jewelry attempted to reframe the event as merely a sewer-capacity failure (and argued that a sewer cannot be “flooded” because it is not “normally dry”). The court rejected that reframing because the policy question was not whether the sewer itself is “normally dry,” but whether the backup was caused by, or resulted from, a flood condition external to the property (inundation of normally dry land) that in turn overwhelmed the sewer. The court treated “inadequate capacity” as derivative of flood conditions, not an independent cause that would avoid the exclusion.

2. The main-floor loss: failure of proof and the role of metadata

The main-floor claim turned on causation. If water reached the main floor from the basement (elevator carrying water upward), coverage was still barred by the same flood-driven backup analysis. If, instead, wind damaged the building’s walls and allowed rain to enter (implicating a different coverage pathway), Express Jewelry could potentially avoid the flood exclusion argument for that portion of loss.

National Fire supported the excluded-cause theory with inspection evidence finding no contemporaneous roof/wall damage or ceiling leaks and attributing the main-floor water to the basement. Express Jewelry’s rebuttal depended on photos/video purportedly showing storm-created wall openings. But National Fire produced unrefuted metadata analysis showing the media files were created in December and relied on iPhone software not released until October; additional exterior images showed no such wall opening as late as August; and the physical characteristics (absence of staining/organic growth) were inconsistent with a months-old opening.

Given that record, the court held Express Jewelry’s deposition testimony asserting the files were created in June could not create a genuine dispute. Citing Davis v. Gallagher and Viet v. Le (quoting Alexander v. CareSource), the court treated the testimony as “self-serving” and “blatantly and demonstrably false” in light of objective metadata. Under Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, that failure to produce admissible, reliable evidence of a covered cause meant summary judgment was required.

C. Impact

1. Flood exclusions can swallow sewer-backup extensions when the backup is flood-driven

The decision underscores that sewer-backup coverage extensions are often conditional: where a policy carves out backups “caused by or resulting from” a flood (and defines flood by inundation of normally dry land), courts may treat municipal system overload and subsequent backup as flood-resulting, even if the immediate mechanism is a sewer capacity failure. Policyholders in heavy-rain events should expect insurers to litigate causation at the “flood condition” level, not merely at the “backup mechanism” level.

2. Objective digital forensics can be dispositive at summary judgment

The court’s treatment of metadata evidence signals an evidentiary reality for modern first-party property claims: timestamps, file metadata, software-version histories, and comparable objective markers can defeat testimonial accounts and prevent a case from reaching a jury. Practically, insureds and insurers alike will likely invest more in early digital forensic preservation and analysis of photos/videos offered to establish causation.

3. Reinforcement of burden allocation in coverage litigation

By repeatedly invoking Solomon v. Royal Maccabees Life Ins. Co., the court emphasized that insureds must affirmatively prove coverage (including a covered cause of loss), not merely challenge an insurer’s denial. This framing can be outcome-determinative when competing causation theories exist and the insured’s evidence is thin or compromised.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Coverage extension vs. exclusion carveout: An “extension” adds coverage for a risk that might otherwise be excluded (here, sewer/drain backup). But the extension can contain its own “carveout” that removes coverage in specified circumstances (here, when the backup is caused by or results from a flood).
• “Caused by or is the result of” (causation language): This wording captures more than the immediate physical mechanism. Even if the immediate event is “backup,” coverage can be barred if the backup is a consequence of another excluded condition (here, inundation/flood conditions that overwhelm infrastructure).
• Policy “ambiguity”: Under Michigan law, if policy language is unambiguous, courts apply it as written and do not rely on outside materials (news reports, government statements, or generalized characterizations).
• Summary judgment: A case can be resolved before trial if there is no genuine dispute of material fact. Under Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, a party who bears the burden at trial must produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to rule in its favor.
• Metadata: Information embedded in digital files (creation date, device/software indicators). Courts may treat unrefuted metadata as objective evidence that can override inconsistent testimony.

V. Conclusion

Express Jewelry Enters. v. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford offers two practical rules for modern property-insurance disputes. First, when a policy’s sewer-backup coverage is limited by a flood carveout, extraordinary rainfall that inundates normally dry areas and overwhelms municipal systems can render the backup “flood-resulting” and therefore excluded. Second, at summary judgment, objective digital forensics—like unrefuted photo/video metadata—can defeat causation narratives supported primarily by testimony, leaving an insured unable to meet its burden to show a covered loss under Solomon v. Royal Maccabees Life Ins. Co. and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett.