Page 10 - CLT120919

10 ¦ DECEMBER 9, 2019 NEWS

¦ From HIGH COURT on PAGE 9 credibility of the expert testimony adduced by the
building “must be in imminent danger of falling insured and the insurer.”
down” was implicit in its holding in Beach. It agreed Finally, the court rejected the Karases’ contention
with the following explication set forth by the that the coverage exclusion in the Liberty policy for
Washington Supreme Court in Queen Anne Park the collapse of the home’s “foundation” did not in-
Homeowners Ass’n v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., clude the basement walls of their home but, rather,
352 P.3d 790 (Wash. 2015): only meant the footings beneath the basement walls.
“[C]ollapse” must mean something more than The court concluded that the term “foundation” in
mere “settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or the Karases’ homeowners’ insurance policy “unam-
expansion.” . . . Also, we note that “structur- biguously” included their basement walls and that
al integrity” of a building means a building’s the collapse provision in their policy applied to any
ability to remain upright and “substantial foundation located on their property, including the
impairment” means a severe impairment. one beneath their house.
Taken together, “substantial impairment” of The case is Karas v. Liberty Ins. Corp., No. SC
“structural integrity” means an impairment 20149 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019). Attorneys involved
so severe as to materially impair a building’s include: Michael D. Parker, pro hac vice, with whom
ability to remain upright. Considering the [p] was Jeffrey R. Lindequist, for the appellants (plain-
olicy as a whole, [the court] conclude[s] that tiffs). Robert A. Kole, pro hac vice, with whom was
“substantial impairment of structural integ- Kieran W. Leary, for the appellee (defendant). Paul
rity” means the substantial impairment of the R. Doyle and Kevin P. Walsh filed a brief for Con-
structural integrity of all or part of a building necticut Senator Paul R. Doyle as amicus curiae.
that renders all or part of the building unfit for Wystan M. Ackerman filed a brief for the Ameri-
its function or unsafe and, in this case, means can Insurance Association et al. as amici curiae.
more than mere settling, cracking, shrinkage, Thomas O. Farrish filed a brief for the Insurance
bulging, or expansion. Association of Connecticut as amicus curiae. Ryan
The Connecticut Supreme Court said that, to M. Suerth, Marilyn B. Fagelson, Proloy K. Das and
conclude otherwise, would not only nullify the ex- Sarah Gruber filed a brief for United Policyholders
clusion contained in the Liberty policy for losses as amicus curiae.
related to “settling, cracking, shrinkage, bulging or
expansion” but would strip the term “collapse” of its Insurance Coverage Law Center Comment
“natural and ordinary meaning.” On the same day the court decided Karas, it also
It therefore disagreed with the Karases that Beach issued two other decisions in crumbling concrete
supported the view that the substantial impairment cases. See Vera v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., No.
standard could be satisfied “merely by evidence that SC 20178 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019) (“substantial im-
a building will eventually fall down,” even if it was pairment of structural integrity” standard required
“in no present danger of doing so,” and likely could showing that building was in imminent danger
be “safely occupied for years, if not decades, into the of falling down or caving in, that is, in imminent
future.” danger of an actual collapse); Jemiola v. Hartford Ca-
Therefore, the court held, to meet the substan- sualty Ins. Co., No. SC 19978 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019)
tial impairment standard, an insured whose home (policy’s collapse provisions “unambiguously” fore-
had not “actually collapsed” must present evidence closed coverage).
demonstrating that the home nevertheless was “in ¦

imminent danger of such a collapse.” The court not- Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School
ed that whether this evidence satisfied the standard graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerow-
in any particular case necessarily would depend on itz Communications Inc.. He may be contacted at
the “specific facts of the case and the strength and [email protected].

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune