Since the parties agree that this case should proceed by
way of summary judgment rule 20.04(2)(b) applies. It provides:
20.04(2) The court shall grant summary judgment if,
. . . . .
(b) the parties agree to have all or part of the claim determined by
a summary judgment and the court is satisfied that it is appropriate to grant summary judgment.
 I agree with counsel that this is an appropriate case for
summary judgment. The primary issue relates to the interpretation of a contract of insurance, and the relevant evidence has
been provided by means of expert reports and photographs of
the affected area. In my opinion, I have all the evidence that
would be available to a trial judge if this matter proceeded by
way of trial.
 The first issue is whether I can resolve the factual dispute
on the basis of the affidavit evidence filed.
 Gore determined that the flood fell within the exclusion to
the flood extension on the basis of a report prepared by Mr. Greg
Smrke, a professional engineer, which concluded that the water
from the rainstorm entered the premises through a gap in the
foundation wrap in the corner joint between two wall sections.
His report states:
(a) The rainwater rushed down a hillside adjacent to the building and
accumulated at the side of the building before flowing down the drive-
way towards the road. As such the flow of water did not appear to be
the result of an overflow of a natural or man-made body of water.
(b) A waterproof membrane was attached to the foundation blocks with
adhesive around the perimeter of the entire building, which consisted of
an original building and a number of additions. While the membrane was
in good condition in most places and well adhered to the wall where the
water accumulated, there was a discontinuity in the membrane near
a corner joint between two addition walls that met perpendicular at an
inside corner of the building exterior.
(c) The resulting gap in the membrane created an entry point for the
water which was shown to be pooling in this area.
(d) It is most likely that the water entered below the surface of the ground
through discontinuity of the water proof membrane at the point where
the walls for the two additions met.
(e) The water level did not rise above the top of the concrete block foundation wall.
(f) Inspection of the interior supports this conclusion. Water damage is
evident in the second addition where baseboards have been removed to