Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii | August 28, 2019
Despite the need to shore up the ceiling, the building was not in a state of collapse under the language of the policy. Ravinia Vouge Cleaners v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123594 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2019).
Ravinia Cleaners held a property policy issued by Travelers for the building from which it operated its dry-cleaning business. On February 2, 2015, there was heavy snowfall. On February 4, Ravinia reported to Travelers a leak coming from the ceiling. A temporary “shoring ” was placed on the ceiling. Ravinia reported to Travelers that there was damage to the roof on February 25, 2015. Travelers hired an engineer who observed a buckling truss and roof displacing downward. The inspector recommended that the building be vacated and not occupied until adequate shoring was in place.
Travelers denied coverage because the building was in a state of imminent collapse which was caused by the weight of ice and snow, and defective construction of the truss system. The policy excluded damage relating to a “collapse of a building.” Collapse was defined by the policy as “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building,” such that the building could not be occupied for its intended purpose. There were exceptions to the exclusion, however, if the cause of the collapse was: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred after construction. The policy also excluded damage from a building being in a state of imminent collapse unless the damage was caused by: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred during construction.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, Travelers argued that the length of time between Ravinia reporting a ceiling leak and the discovery of the truss failure established that the roof was in a state of imminent collapse, as there had been no abrupt falling down or caving in of the building. Ravinia argued there was an “abrupt falling down or caving in” as the policy defined collapse. Further, the Travelers inspector reported that the building should be vacated.
The court found that the Travelers’ report did not demonstrate a “collapse” because the policy stated that a building that suffered substantial structural integrity or was in imminent danger of falling down was not a collapse. Similarly, the Travelers’ inspector recommending that the building be vacated did not establish a collapse. The timeline between the initial report and the inspection undermined the argument that there was a “abrupt falling down or caving in” as the policy defined “collapse.”
The court next considered whether the coverage exclusion applied for the roof being in a state of collapse. There was no dispute that the state of imminent collapse did not occur during the course of construction of the roof. Therefore, Ravinia had to demonstrate that the damage resulted from the weight of snow. The policy excluded coverage from damage related to the building being in a state of imminent collapse unless caused by the weight of snow. But Ravinia put forth no evidence that the damage was caused solely by snow.Accordingly, Ravinia had not show that there was a genuine issue of fact for trial. Travelers was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.