Dominic Messina v. Shelter Insurance Company, 585 S.W.3d 839

Dominic Messina’s brick-veneer exterior wall collapsed on December 25, 2016; he had homeowner’s coverage with Shelter for May 29, 2016–May 29, 2017.
Messina’s engineer (Towner) found long-term mortar deterioration and corroded metal connectors and concluded collapse resulted from a combination of those defects and a wind event; he conceded the wall would not have fallen from the wind but for the pre-existing deterioration and rust.
Shelter’s engineer attributed the collapse to long-term expansion/contraction, corrosion, and lack of maintenance (not wind).
The policy covers “accidental direct physical loss” defined as an “accident” that “started abruptly”; it contains an exclusion (Exclusion 9) barring coverage for loss that “would not have occurred in the absence of” listed conditions including wear and tear, deterioration, and rust, and states this exclusion applies regardless of other contributing causes.
Shelter denied the claim; the circuit court granted Shelter’s summary-judgment motion; the court of appeals affirmed, finding Messina conceded the excluded deterioration/rust were but-for causes and the policy’s anti-concurrent-causation language bars coverage.

Issue	Messina's Argument	Shelter's Argument	Held
Whether Exclusion 9 bars coverage when pre-existing deterioration/rust was a but-for cause of collapse	Collapse was at least partly caused by an abrupt wind event (covered); exclusion shouldn’t apply because other covered causes contributed	Exclusion 9 excludes any loss that would not have occurred but for listed conditions (deterioration/rust), regardless of concurrent covered causes	Held for Shelter: Messina conceded deterioration/rust were but-for causes; anti-concurrent-causation language excludes coverage
Whether insured’s knowledge or discoverability of the pre-existing condition is required for Exclusion 9 to apply	Exclusion should not apply if the insured did not know or could not have discovered the pre-existing deterioration	Policy contains no knowledge/discoverability limitation; exclusions enforceable as written	Held for Shelter: court will not rewrite policy to add a knowledge requirement; factual dispute about knowledge is immaterial
Whether the loss qualifies as an “accidental direct physical loss” because of a sudden wind event	Wind event caused abrupt loss; therefore qualifies as an accidental direct physical loss	Even if abrupt event occurred, Exclusion 9 still precludes coverage because deterioration/rust were necessary causes	Court did not need to resolve this; exclusion dispositive and judgment for Shelter affirmed

Allen v. Cont’l W. Ins. Co., 436 S.W.3d 548 (Mo. 2014) (give policy language its plain meaning; ambiguities construed against insurer)
Todd v. Mo. United Sch. Ins. Council, 223 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. 2007) (clear, unambiguous exclusions are enforceable)
Bowan v. Gen. Sec. Indemn. Co. of Ariz., 174 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (concurrent-proximate-cause rule: coverage if one proximate cause is covered)
Pakmark Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 943 S.W.2d 256 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997) (anti-concurrent-causation provisions that preclude coverage regardless of other contributing causes are enforceable)
Rodin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 844 S.W.2d 537 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (loss excluded where excluded cause operated concurrently with covered cause under anti-concurrent language)
Taylor v. Bar Plan Mut. Ins. Co., 457 S.W.3d 340 (Mo. 2015) (discussion of causation doctrines in insurance contexts)
Cowin v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 460 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (courts may not add terms to insurance policies; enforce policy as written)