{"id":854,"date":"2010-11-11T18:26:26","date_gmt":"2010-11-12T02:26:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/bullivant.wpengine.com\/?p=854"},"modified":"2021-03-21T13:29:46","modified_gmt":"2021-03-21T20:29:46","slug":"collapse-coverage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/studioactiv8.com\/bullivant\/collapse-coverage\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;Collapse&#8221; Coverage Ensues from Excluded Perils"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"wpb-content-wrapper\">[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In <i>Sprague v. Safeco<\/i>, an intermediate Washington appellate court recently determined that coverage under all-risk homeowners&#8217; policies applied to a &#8220;state of collapse&#8221; in the insureds&#8217; residence based on an ensuing loss exception to exclusions for construction defects and rot, even though the policies at issue contained no mention of &#8220;collapse&#8221; coverage. No. 63933-1-I, 2010 WL 4274935 (Wn. App., Nov. 1, 2010). Experts for the homeowners and their insurer agreed the residence was in a state of &#8220;substantial impairment of structural integrity&#8221; that amounted to &#8220;a state of imminent collapse.&#8221; In addition, this state developed before the insurer revised its policies to define collapse to require &#8220;actual falling down,&#8221; and the relevant policies contained no &#8220;collapse&#8221; exclusion.<\/p>\n<p>The court noted that the Washington Supreme Court has never determined the scope of &#8220;collapse&#8221; coverage where the term is undefined in an insurance policy. The appellate court, therefore, cited its earlier prediction (in <i>Mercer Place Condo. Ass&#8217;n v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co<\/i>., 104 Wn. App. 597, 602, 17 P.3d 626 (2000)) that &#8220;collapse&#8221; coverage would apply under Washington law to some degree of mere structural impairment, without actual collapse. The court, however, did not clarify whether &#8220;substantial impairment of structural integrity&#8221; alone triggers &#8220;collapse&#8221; coverage or if a state of &#8220;imminent collapse&#8221; must also exist. Since the all-risk policies at issue contained no &#8220;collapse&#8221; exclusion, the court determined that the state of &#8220;collapse&#8221; constituted a covered loss ensuing from the excluded perils. Thus, the insureds were entitled to coverage and their attorney fees.<\/p>\n<p>The practical effect of <i>Sprague<\/i> is that it creates &#8220;collapse&#8221; coverage, based on structural damage less than &#8220;actual falling down,&#8221; when the &#8220;collapse&#8221; ensues from excluded perils, even when no &#8220;additional peril of collapse&#8221; appears in the policy. Insurers presented with any first-party claim involving rot or design\/construction defects should take a close look at the potential for significant structural impairment, particularly if the claim is submitted by a long-term insured under an all-risk policy.<\/p>\n[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In Sprague v. Safeco, an intermediate Washington appellate court recently determined that coverage under all-risk homeowners&#8217; policies applied to a &#8220;state of collapse&#8221; in the insureds&#8217; residence based on an ensuing loss exception to exclusions for construction defects and rot, even though the policies at issue contained no mention of &#8220;collapse&#8221; coverage. No. 63933-1-I, 2010&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32,"featured_media":829,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[147],"tags":[198],"post_series":[],"class_list":["post-854","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insurance-coverage","tag-insights","authorormentioned-matthew-sekits","entry","has-media"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/studioactiv8.com\/bullivant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/854","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/studioactiv8.com\/bullivant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/studioactiv8.com\/bullivant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studioactiv8.com\/bullivant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studioactiv8.com\/bullivant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=854"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/studioactiv8.com\/bullivant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/854\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studioactiv8.com\/bullivant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/829"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/studioactiv8.com\/bullivant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=854"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studioactiv8.com\/bullivant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=854"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studioactiv8.com\/bullivant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=854"},{"taxonomy":"post_series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/studioactiv8.com\/bullivant\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_series?post=854"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}