• Legal Team
    • Attorney Profiles
  • Practice Areas
    • Personal Injury, Wrongful Death & Medical Negligence
    • Insurance Claims
    • Construction & Condo Defect
    • Other Practice Areas
    • Do’s & Don’ts for Injured Victims
  • Results
    • Testimonials
  • Attorney Referrals
  • Insurance Law Blog
  • Law Blog
  • Contact Us

Compassion, Experience, Dedication, Results

  • Join our Facebook Group
  • RSS

WA SUP. CT. (IN COMPANION TO VISION ONE CASE) DECLINES TO APPLY ENSUING/RESULTING LOSS CLAUSE IN ALL-RISK POLICY

this entry has 0 Comments/ in Insurance / by Scott Breneman

Insureds under an all-risk policy who are unable to establish a separate loss apart from excluded perils, notwithstanding that the exclusion contains an ensuing/resulting loss clause, may not be able to establish coverage under such ensuing loss clause.

Sprague v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2012 WL 1744149 (5/17/12) had been consolidated for argument with Vision One, LLC v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2012 WL 1740155 (5/17/12). Sprague involved a residential deck system that rotted out due to improper construction techniques (including resulting in rotting supporting “fin walls”). Over the years, Safeco had issued all risk policies to the homeowners. The parties agreed that the loss occurred prior to a revised homeowners’ policy issued in 2003 that excluded “collapse” from the insured risks. The homeowners argued that their deck was in a state of collapse and because “collapse” was not excluded under the pre–2003 policies, coverage was available under the ensuing loss provision. Safeco disputed whether the deck had collapsed and contended that coverage was excluded under the rot and defective construction exclusions.

In agreeing with Safeco that there was no coverage, the Washington Supreme Court stated: “We need not decide whether the deck had collapsed due to the loss of structural integrity even though it had not fallen to the ground. Whether or not the deck had reached a state of collapse, its condition was the result of the excluded perils of defective workmanship and rot and did not constitute a separate loss apart from those perils.” The Supreme Court went on to distinguish this case from Vision One: “If there had been losses other than to the fin walls—an injury to a person hurt by the collapse or property damaged by the deck failure—coverage would have existed under the ensuing loss provisions of the policy. Unlike Vision One, that was not the case here. The only loss was to the deck system itself. That loss resulted from rot caused by construction defects.”

(next entry) WA SUP. CT. (VISION ONE CASE) INTERPRETS ENSUING/RESULTING LOSS CLAUSE IN ALL-RISK INSURANCE POLICY, AND CLARIFIES APPLICATION OF EFFICIENT PROXIMATE CAUSE RULE, TO PROVIDE COVERAGE →
Comments

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Whether you are a non-lawyer or lawyer, learn more about insurance law terms, including those used on this blog.

 

Click Here

Learn More

  • Attorney Testimonials
  • Case Results
  • Client Testimonials
  • Insurance
  • Law Blog
  • Testimonials

Links

  • American Bar Association-Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee
  • Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner
  • Oregon Department of Consumer & Business Services
  • Idaho Department of Insurance
  • Montana Commissioner of Securities & Insurance
  • Nevada Department of Business and Industry-Nevada Division of Insurance
  • National Association of Insurance Commissioners
  • Insurance Journal
  • American Bar Association Law News
  • Wall Street Journal Law Blog

Northwest Trial

1200 Fifth Ave, Suite 625
Seattle, WA 98101

P: (206) 770-7606
F: (206) 770-7607

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Legal Team
    • Attorney Profiles
  • Practice Areas
    • Personal Injury, Wrongful Death & Medical Negligence
    • Insurance Claims
    • Construction & Condo Defect
    • Other Practice Areas
  • Do’s & Don’ts for Injured Victims
  • Results
    • Testimonials
  • Attorney Referrals
  • Insurance Law Blog
  • Law Blog
  • Contact Northwest Trial
  • Legal Disclaimer

Categories

  • Attorney Testimonials
  • Case Results
  • Client Testimonials
  • Insurance
  • Law Blog
  • Testimonials

Do you have a claim?

Contact Northwest Trial today to find out if we can help.

Contact Us

 

© Copyright - Northwest Trial - Site by Walking Fish Studios
  • Tell us about your claim
  • Join our Facebook Group
  • Subscribe to our RSS Feed