Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii | September 9, 2019
The insurer unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment seeking to reject the insured’s collapse claim. Gnannn v. United Servs. Auto, Ass’n, 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1955 (Conn. Super Ct. July 11, 2019).
The insureds’ home was built in 1985 and they purchased their home in 1993. A home inspection reported that some settlement and curing related cracks existed in the slab floor, but no signs of abnormal settlement were noticed. The concrete walls were in overall good condition.
In 2015, the insureds became aware of abnormal cracking in the basement. USAA was informed of the claim but denied coverage in October 2015. The insureds sued USAA. After suit was filed, the insureds hired an engineer, David Grandpre, to inspect their home. He observed severe cracking in the basement walls caused by an expansive chemical reaction within the concrete. The structure was not in imminent peril of falling down, and it continued as insureds’ residence. But Mr. Grandpre noticed bulging and bowing, evidence that the concrete basement walls had failed and had begun to move inward due to the lateral pressure of the soil outside the home.
USAA’s policy covered “collapse”, defined as follows:
8. “Collapse” For an entire building or any part of a building covered by this insurance we insure for direct physical loss to covered property involving “collapse’ of a building or any part of a building only when the “collapse” is cause by one or more of the following:
Causes listed included “decay that is hidden from view” and “use of defective materials or methods in construction, remodeling or renovation.” “Collapse” meant a sudden falling or caving in.”
USAA filed its motion for summary judgment. USAA argued there was no “sudden falling or caving in.” The court found that “caving in” was susceptible to a meaning other than “falling.” The court determined it could not conclude, as a matter of law, that the conditions observed by Mr. Grandpre did not constituted a “caving in.’ If the walls had to completely give way to the earth outside then in order to constitute “caving in,’ there would be no material difference between “caving in” and “falling.” Whether the insureds’ basement walls had been undermined and given way to the point that they were caving in, as distinguished from falling, was a question of fact. The court found “sudden” to mean a quick or abrupt event, not just an unexpected one.
Therefore, there was a genuine issue of material fact whether the damage described by Mr. Grandpre constituted a caving in of the basement walls. Whether the basement walls had been undermined and given way to the point that they were caving in, as distinguished from falling, was a question of fact for the jury. There was also genuine issues of material fact involved in determining whether the basement walls experienced a “sudden falling or caving in.”