{"id":890656,"date":"2016-08-12T15:44:29","date_gmt":"2016-08-12T21:44:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=890656"},"modified":"2016-08-12T15:44:29","modified_gmt":"2016-08-12T21:44:29","slug":"washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/","title":{"rendered":"Washington Court Finds Coverage For \u201cCollapse\u201d Is Not Set In Stone"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mariko Shitama Outman | Property Casualty Focus<\/a> | August 5, 2016<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>As this blog has documented, the language of insurance policies evolves; it changes to address new risks, and it also responds to new interpretations of old policy provisions. Even if a policyholder maintains a long-standing relationship with a single carrier, the availability of coverage might turn on whether the loss occurred in a particular policy term. Property coverage for \u201ccollapse<\/strong><\/a>\u201d provides an example of this development. After a number of courts found that the word could be applied to the slow deterioration of structural elements, insurers began to include a narrower definition in the text of their policies. But last month, in American Economy Ins. Co. v. CHL, LLC<\/em>, No. C15-899 (W.D. Wash. July 7, 2016), a federal court had to decide what the relevant term meant before any policy had defined it. As it turned out, the court held that the undefined term was still too narrow to provide coverage in that case.<\/p>\n

The Long, Slow Road To \u201cCollapse\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Structural collapse has been a problem since at least 1400 B.C.E.\u00a0 Property insurers were arguably late to the game: they began covering losses associated with the \u201ccollapse\u201d of all or part of a building in the 1950s. See Nido v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.<\/em>, 454 So. 2d 328, 331 (La. Ct. App. 1984). Initially, policies did not define the term \u201ccollapse<\/a>,\u201d other than to state that it did not<\/strong><\/em> include \u201csettling, cracking, shrinking, bulging, or expansion.\u201d With just those exclusions to go on, courts took at least three separate approaches to interpreting the meaning of \u201ccollapse\u201d:<\/p>\n

(1) Some courts held that a \u201ccollapse\u201d is \u201ca falling down, falling together, or caving into an unorganized mass<\/strong>.\u201d Thus, a collapse occurs only when all or part of a structure has actually fallen down<\/strong>. Olmstead v. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co.<\/em>, 259 N.E.2d 123 (Ohio 1970).<\/p>\n

(2) According to other courts, coverage for collapse \u201cdoes not require that structures fall<\/strong>.\u201d But it does<\/em>require \u201cserious impairment of structural integrity<\/strong> that connotes imminent collapse<\/strong><\/em> threatening the preservation of the building as a structure or the health and safety of occupants and passers-by.\u201d Fantis Foods, Inc. v. N. River Ins. Co.<\/em>, 753 A.2d 176 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2000).<\/p>\n

(3) For still other courts, a \u201ccollapse\u201d can occur, even in a structure that will remain standing for the foreseeable future, so long as there has been \u201csubstantial impairment of the structural integrity<\/strong> of the building or any part of a building.\u201d Am. Concept Ins. Co. v. Jones<\/em>, 935 F.Supp. 1220 (D. Utah 1996).<\/p>\n

The third, most expansive of these interpretations is currently the majority approach, while the narrowest view\u2014that a building must actually fall down\u2014is retained in only a minority of jurisdictions. Assurance Co. of Am. v. Assocs. LLC of Olympia<\/em>, 379 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2004).<\/p>\n

Defining \u201cCollapse\u201d Down<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1999, to resolve this jurisdictional conflict, and to help insurers avoid assuming risks unintentionally, ISO promulgated a policy form that includes an express definition of the word \u201ccollapse.\u201d According to that definition,<\/p>\n

Collapse means an abrupt falling down or caving in<\/strong> of a building or any part of a building with the result that the building or part of a building cannot be occupied for its current intended purpose.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yet this definition has resulted in another split of authority. A majority has found the definition unambiguous, and they have applied it to claims in a way that narrows coverage for collapse. E.g., Rapp B. Properties, LLC v. RLI Ins. Co.<\/em>, 885 N.Y.S.2d 283 (App. Div. 2009). But a minority has concluded that the definition is ambiguous, and so that it must be construed in favor of coverage for the insured. E.g., Malbco Holdings, LLC v. AMCO Ins. Co.<\/em> 629 F.Supp.2d 1185 (D. Ore. 2009).<\/p>\n

Insurers\u2019 efforts to clarify the nature of coverage for \u201ccollapse\u201d<\/a> have also been attacked in other ways. In Connecticut, several hundred homeowners have discovered a pattern of cracking in their basement walls, which they attribute to defective concrete from a single supplier. Some of these homeowners allege that their houses \u201cultimately\u201d will \u201cfall into their basements\u201d if the basement walls are not replaced. These homeowners recently filed a class action lawsuit, Halloran v. Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co.<\/em>, No. 16-0133 (D. Conn.), in which they claim that more than a hundred insurers have \u201cconspired\u201d to deny coverage for concrete claims by, among other things, adopting a narrow definition of the word \u201ccollapse.\u201d [Full disclosure: Carlton Fields represents one of the defendants in the Halloran<\/em> case.]<\/strong><\/p>\n

The complaint in that suit appears to propose a theory that insurers may not change the terms of a homeowners policy at the time the policy is renewed.<\/strong> It states:<\/p>\n

This unilateral change [to the definition of \u201ccollapse\u2019] was ineffective to alter or amend the terms of the original<\/em> contract of insurance<\/strong> between the Defendant Insurance Companies and the Plaintiffs and\/or putative Class Members and still did not foreclose coverage for homeowners with defective concrete.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It remains to be seen whether plaintiffs will pursue that theory, or whether the court will sustain it.<\/p>\n

Past Policies Are Never Dead. They\u2019re Not Even Past.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Whether or not there is merit to the ideas being propounded in Halloran<\/em>, policies that use the term \u201ccollapse\u201d without defining it still govern many coverage disputes. This is because property policies are typically \u201coccurrence<\/strong>\u201d policies, which cover losses that occur during the policy period. Collapse claims often suggest that the alleged \u201ccollapse\u201d was a manifestation of hidden damage\u2014such as decay or insect damage\u2014that the structure suffered years before it became apparent. Policyholders seek coverage for such collapses under policies that were in place at the time the original damage allegedly occurred.<\/p>\n

Those were the circumstances in the American Economy<\/em> case. In 2014, CHL, the owner of an apartment building, discovered significant decay of the building\u2019s rim joists. It sought coverage from American Economy, which had issued policies for the period from 1999 to 2002\u2014policies that covered loss caused by \u201ccollapse,\u201d without defining that term.<\/p>\n

The insurer sent a structural engineer to inspect the building, and the engineer determined that several of the decayed rim joists suffered from \u201csubstantial structural impairment.\u201d The engineer defined this to mean that the joists could not support the loads necessary to satisfy the local building code, and, as a result, that the building could be classified as a \u201cdangerous building.\u201d He further concluded that the joists had reached this state sometime between 1999 and 2002, during the old policy period.<\/p>\n

The policyholder\u2019s claim for coverage depended on whether \u201csubstantial structural impairment\u201d of this kind fell within the meaning of \u201ccollapse,\u201d independent of any definition provided by later policies. As it happened, that issue was currently pending before the Supreme Court of Washington, in a case called Queen Anne Park Homeowner\u2019s Association v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.<\/em>, 352 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2015). The insurer in American Economy<\/em> denied the claim, but agreed to reopen it if the Queen Anne Park<\/em> decision turned out to favor the insured.<\/p>\n

The dispute in Queen Anne Park<\/em> began in 2009, after a condominium homeowners association discovered hidden decay in their buildings. The association alleged that \u201ca substantial impairment of the structural integrity of [some] portion or component\u201d of the buildings had occurred between 1992 and 1998, and it duly asserted a claim under policies issued for that period. As was the case in American Economy<\/em>, an engineer found that the hidden decay had \u201csubstantially impaired\u201d the ability of certain walls to resist lateral loads.<\/p>\n

The insurer denied the claim, and the association filed an action for a declaratory judgment in a Washington federal court. The case eventually landed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which certified the question of how to interpret \u201ccollapse\u201d to the Washington Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

The Washington court ruled that \u201ccollapse<\/a>,\u201d as used without any definition in the 1992-1998 policies, was ambiguous\u2014citing the courts across the country that had adopted \u201cdifferent but reasonable definitions\u201d of the term. Because the term was ambiguous, the court also determined that it must adopt the meaning \u201cmost favorable\u201d to the insured.<\/strong> Therefore, it \u201clargely\u201d agreed with the association\u2019s contention that \u201ccollapse\u201d means \u201csubstantial impairment of structural integrity<\/strong>,\u201d and not<\/strong><\/em> an \u201cimminent threat\u201d of falling down<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

However, unlike most courts that have taken this approach, see, e.g., Sandalwood Condo. Ass\u2019n at Wildwood, Inc.<\/em>, 294 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (M.D. Fla. 2003); Beach v. Middlesex Mut. Assur. Co.<\/em>, 532 A.2d 1297 (Conn. 1987), the Washington court went further. It concluded that \u201c \u2018substantial impairment\u2019 of \u2018structural integrity\u2019 means an impairment so severe as to materially impair a building\u2019s ability to remain upright.<\/strong>\u201d The court held that, in the context of the policy, \u201ccollapse\u201d meant<\/p>\n

substantial impairment of the structural integrity of a building or part of a building that renders such building or part of a building unfit for its function or unsafe . . . .<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This additional language separates the Washington rule from the majority rule discussed above. Although the court stated that it was choosing the definition of collapse \u201cmost favorable to the insured,\u201d its choice worked out best for the insurer. On remand, the Ninth Circuit, affirmed the district court\u2019s decision, granting summary judgment against the association. Queen Anne Park Homeowner\u2019s Association v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.<\/em>, 633 Fed.App\u2019x 415 (9th Cir. 2016). The Ninth Circuit found it \u201cimplausible\u201d that certain walls of the condominiums had become \u201cunfit for [their] function or unsafe\u201d by 1998 (the year the policies expired), because the condominiums had continued to be used until 2012.<\/p>\n

The Result in American Economy<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

American Economy denied CHL\u2019s claim a second time after the Washington Supreme Court had ruled in Queen Anne Park<\/em>. By that time, CHL had filed an action for declaratory relief in federal court in Washington, and the insurer moved for summary judgment.<\/p>\n

In granting that motion, the district court acknowledged that it was not bound by the Ninth Circuit\u2019s unpublished opinion in Queen Anne<\/em>, but it found the reasoning of that decision persuasive nevertheless. Furthermore, although American Economy\u2019s engineer had found that CHL\u2019s building had suffered \u201csubstantial structural impairment\u201d during the policy period, the court found that the engineer was using that phrase in accordance with the usage of the local building code, and not<\/strong> <\/em>as it had been defined by Washington\u2019s high court in Queen Anne Park<\/em>. That is, the engineer\u2019s statement did not imply any conclusion about the building\u2019s ability to \u201cremain upright.\u201d<\/p>\n

While CHL is correct that the building code is designed to protect safety, that does not mean that a failure to meet the building code necessarily means a building is \u2018unsafe\u2019 in the way the Washington Supreme Court used that term. . . . Importantly, the use of the word \u2018unsafe\u2019 by the Washington Supreme Court was a gloss on the first definition it had given for a building in a state of collapse: a building suffering from a \u2018severe impairment\u2019 of its \u2018ability to remain upright.\u2019<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In light of the fact that CHL\u2019s building had remained standing without renovation until 2014, the court, following the Ninth Circuit, found it \u201cimplausible\u201d that the apartment building \u201chad a severe impairment of [its] ability to remain upright between 1999 and 2002.\u201d The court held that the insurer was entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, that the building had not reached a state of \u201ccollapse\u201d during the policy period.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

In spite of insurers\u2019 inclusion of a definition of \u201ccollapse<\/a>\u201d in current policies, the policies of yesterday\u2014which did not define \u201ccollapse\u201d\u2014are still relevant today. Moreover, the interpretation of these old policies is still evolving.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mariko Shitama Outman | Property Casualty Focus | August 5, 2016 As this blog has documented, the language of insurance policies evolves; it changes to address new risks, and it also responds to new interpretations of old policy provisions. Even if a policyholder maintains a long-standing relationship with a single carrier, the availability of coverage… Continue reading Washington Court Finds Coverage For \u201cCollapse\u201d Is Not Set In Stone<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[3],"tags":[8575,3],"class_list":["post-890656","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insurance-claims","tag-collapse-coverage","tag-insurance-claims","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nWashington Court Finds Coverage For \u201cCollapse\u201d Is Not Set In Stone - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In spite of insurers\u2019 inclusion of definition of \u201ccollapse\u201d in current policies, the policies of yesterday\u2014which didn't define \u201ccollapse\u201d\u2014are still relevant\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Washington Court Finds Coverage For \u201cCollapse\u201d Is Not Set In Stone - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In spite of insurers\u2019 inclusion of definition of \u201ccollapse\u201d in current policies, the policies of yesterday\u2014which didn't define \u201ccollapse\u201d\u2014are still relevant\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-08-12T21:44:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/propertycasualtyfocus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Buffalo_Implode2_cropped_levelled-300x243.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Washington Court Finds Coverage For \u201cCollapse\u201d Is Not Set In Stone\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-08-12T21:44:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/\"},\"wordCount\":1934,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/propertycasualtyfocus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Buffalo_Implode2_cropped_levelled-300x243.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Collapse Coverage\",\"Insurance Claims\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Insurance Claims\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/\",\"name\":\"Washington Court Finds Coverage For \u201cCollapse\u201d Is Not Set In Stone - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/propertycasualtyfocus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Buffalo_Implode2_cropped_levelled-300x243.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-08-12T21:44:29+00:00\",\"description\":\"In spite of insurers\u2019 inclusion of definition of \u201ccollapse\u201d in current policies, the policies of yesterday\u2014which didn't define \u201ccollapse\u201d\u2014are still relevant\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/propertycasualtyfocus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Buffalo_Implode2_cropped_levelled-300x243.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\/\/propertycasualtyfocus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Buffalo_Implode2_cropped_levelled-300x243.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Washington Court Finds Coverage For \u201cCollapse\u201d Is Not Set In Stone - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"In spite of insurers\u2019 inclusion of definition of \u201ccollapse\u201d in current policies, the policies of yesterday\u2014which didn't define \u201ccollapse\u201d\u2014are still relevant","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Washington Court Finds Coverage For \u201cCollapse\u201d Is Not Set In Stone - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"In spite of insurers\u2019 inclusion of definition of \u201ccollapse\u201d in current policies, the policies of yesterday\u2014which didn't define \u201ccollapse\u201d\u2014are still relevant","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2016-08-12T21:44:29+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/propertycasualtyfocus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Buffalo_Implode2_cropped_levelled-300x243.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Washington Court Finds Coverage For \u201cCollapse\u201d Is Not Set In Stone","datePublished":"2016-08-12T21:44:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/"},"wordCount":1934,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/propertycasualtyfocus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Buffalo_Implode2_cropped_levelled-300x243.jpg","keywords":["Collapse Coverage","Insurance Claims"],"articleSection":["Insurance Claims"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/","name":"Washington Court Finds Coverage For \u201cCollapse\u201d Is Not Set In Stone - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/propertycasualtyfocus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Buffalo_Implode2_cropped_levelled-300x243.jpg","datePublished":"2016-08-12T21:44:29+00:00","description":"In spite of insurers\u2019 inclusion of definition of \u201ccollapse\u201d in current policies, the policies of yesterday\u2014which didn't define \u201ccollapse\u201d\u2014are still relevant","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/washington-court-finds-coverage-for-collapse-is-not-set-in-stone\/#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/propertycasualtyfocus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Buffalo_Implode2_cropped_levelled-300x243.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/propertycasualtyfocus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Buffalo_Implode2_cropped_levelled-300x243.jpg"},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3JHq","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/890656","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=890656"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/890656\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":890657,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/890656\/revisions\/890657"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=890656"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=890656"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=890656"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}