where no body of water previously existed. I come to this conclusion by considering all of the words in context. A pre-existing
body of water such as a lake, river or reservoir can rise, breakout
or overflow. In this case, the pool of water did not exist before
the rain, and cannot be said to rise, break out or overflow because it has no pre-determined boundary or level from which it
can rise, break out or overflow.
 While the term “body of water” might be ambiguous when
considered in isolation, it is not ambiguous when considered
in the context of the complete clause. In my view, the context
clearly shows that the intention was to include the rising, breaking out or overflow of an existing and identifiable body of water.
Interpretation of the Insurance Policy
 Given this interpretation of the term “body of water”,
I would interpret the insurance policy as follows:
(1) The water damage to the plaintiff’s premises is not excluded
by the flood exclusion in clause 6B(b) of the insurance policy
because the definition of “flood” in clause 20(j) of the policy
restricts the otherwise inclusive definition of flood in clause
6B(b). These provisions only exclude floods caused by the
rising, breaking out or overflowing of a body of water.
(2) The water damage to the plaintiff’s premises is excluded by
virtue of clause 6B(c)( i) of the policy since the damage was
caused “by seepage, leakage or influx or water derived from
natural sources through . . . foundations”.
(3) The water damage to the plaintiff’s premises is not covered
by the flood endorsement because the water damage was
not caused by “the rising of, the breaking out or the overflow
of any body of water whether natural or man-made” as
required by the definition of flood in clause 6 of the flood
(4) The water damage to the plaintiff’s premises is not covered
by the “Extension of Coverage” in clause 4 of the flood
endorsement because the rain that entered the building did
not enter the building as a direct result of a “flood” as that
term is defined by clause 6 of the flood endorsement.
 If I am incorrect about the definition of flood in clause 6 of
the flood endorsement, I would have found that the water
damage did meet the other requirements of clause 4. If the word
flood had a wider definition, it would be my view that the water
damage qualifies as “damage to the property caused by . . . rain