Appellant cites these surface water cases as revealing that once water enters a building’s plumbing system, its status changes and any damage it causes becomes a plumbing mishap which is not excluded under appellant’s policy. In light of the clear language in the insurance policy at issue, we do not find persuasive the surface water analogies in Marchetti and Valley Forge. The policy excludes coverage for “[w]ater that backs up or overflows from a sewer, drain or sump.” Reading the exclusion so as to eliminate instances where water has traveled through appellant’s plumbing system would, in effect, be reading the exclusion out of the policy. See Fiess, 202 S.W.3d at 748; see also Jackson v. Am. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 299 F.Supp. 151, 156 (M.D.N.C. 1968), ajfd 410 F.2d 395 (4th Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>). We conclude the policy unambiguously excludes
holding no conflict in policy provisions providing coverage for overflow from plumbing system but specially excluding overflow caused by water which backs up through sewers or drains holding that a legal malpractice insurance policy that limited coverage to suits seeking damages and defined damages as excluding sanctions did not provide coverage for a sanctions motion against the insured holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage recognizing a public policy against discrimination but not providing for an independent cause of action holding that insurance company had duty to provide coverage for churchs negligent supervision of pastor under professional liability policy because policy did not contain clause excluding coverage for actions arising out of a criminal act or licentious immoral or sexual behavior