You are here: / / Four-Inch Floor-Drop Caused by Insect-Damage Constituted a “Collapse” wit...

Four-Inch Floor-Drop Caused by Insect-Damage Constituted a “Collapse” within Meaning of Policy

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

 

You might also like
SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION DID NOT INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
THE BOARD’S RULING THAT CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DELIVERY SERVICE WAS UPHELD; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE FACTS WERE MOST SIMILAR TO ANOTHER DECISION INVOLVING THE SAME EMPLOYER WHERE THE COURT FOUND NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether Solar Panels Violate a Restrictive Covenant Precluded Dismissal of Complaint 
Motion to Dismiss In Which Documentary Evidence Was Submitted—Court’s Role Is to Determine Whether Plaintiff Has a Cause of Action, Not Whether Plaintiff Has Stated a Cause of Action—Although the Complaint Alleged Interference With a Competitive Bidding Process Involving Public Entities, the Case Fit an Exception to the Rule that Competitive Bidding Issues Be Determined in an Article 78 Proceeding—It Was Alleged a Private Party (Defendant) Interfered with the Competitive Bidding Process
CLAIMANT, A HAIRCARE PRODUCT SALES REPRESENTATIVE, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PRODUCER OF THE HAIRCARE PRODUCTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). ​
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING REMITTED FOR AGE-APPROPRIATE CONSULTATION CONCERNING THREE OF THE CHILDREN TO DETERMINE THEIR WISHES.
WHERE THE ORDER DISMISSING A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 AFTER A SEVEN-YEAR DELAY IN SEEKING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH CONDUCT DEMONSTRATING A GENERAL PATTERN OF DELAY THE SAVINGS CLAUSE OF CPLR 205 APPLIES AND THE ACTION MAY BE RE-COMMENCED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (THIRD DEPT).
FIRING A SHOTGUN THROUGH A SCREEN DOOR INTO THE DRIVEWAY WHEN THE CHILD WAS NOT HOME DOES NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLECT (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Request for Employees’ Names and Addresses Not Allowed Under Balancing Test... Review of Action Brought Under General Municipal Law Section 4 (Re: Unlawful...