In finding that the term “collapse” in a home insurance policy included a four-inch drop in the floors caused by insect damage, the Third Department explained:
An insurance policy must be interpreted to give clear and unambiguous provisions their plain and ordinary meaning… . However, “[t]he policy must, of course, be construed in favor of the insured, and ambiguities, if any, are to be resolved in the insured’s favor and against the insurer” … . The policy at issue here specifically covers “physical loss to covered property involving collapse of a building or any part of a building” …, but only if such collapse is caused by, among other things, “hidden insect or vermin damage.” While the policy does not define what constitutes a collapse, it provides that a “[c]ollapse does not include settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion.” In this regard, we have held that the term collapse “involves an element of suddenness, a falling in, and total or near total destruction” … . However, “the clear modern trend is to hold that collapse coverage provisions [–] which define collapse as not including cracking and settling – provide coverage if there is substantial impairment of the structural integrity of the building or any part of a building” … . Wangerin v New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 515723, 3rd Dept 11-7-13