Doolittle Investments, LLC v. Motorists Mutual, 235 MDA 2016

Doolittle Investments, LLC (DI) owned a historic building and hired a contractor to investigate/renovate the basement; excavation left foundation walls exposed.
After discovering large exterior cracks and interior movement, DI contacted municipal officer Jeffrey Helm, who advised getting a structural engineer.
Engineer Christian McKee inspected the building and reported active movement (chimney ‘‘dropped 2½ inches from this morning and is still moving,’’ bowing north wall, separation of floors) and recommended immediate demolition; Helm issued an emergency demolition permit and the building was demolished.
DI submitted a claim to its insurer Motorists Mutual, which denied coverage; DI sued Motorists (and Beaver Creek).
Motorists moved for summary judgment asserting (1) no “collapse” under the policy, (2) loss excluded as seizure/destruction by governmental order, and (3) release of the contractor extinguished subrogation (trial court granted summary judgment on the first two grounds).
Superior Court reversed, holding triable issues exist as to whether a collapse was occurring and whether the governmental-action exclusion applied; it rejected Motorists’ subrogation argument on summary judgment grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the loss was a "collapse" under the policy	DI: active, accelerating structural movement (chimney dropping >2½"/day, bowed wall, floor separation) shows a collapse in progress and is covered	Motorists: "collapse" requires sudden falling together; no actual sudden collapse occurred	Held: Triable issue — expert evidence supports that a collapse was in progress; trial court erred granting SJ for Motorists on this ground
Whether the governmental-action exclusion (seizure/destruction by governmental order) bars coverage	DI: Helm’s actions may have been private/administrative approval rather than an authoritative governmental order	Motorists: Helm ordered the demolition in his official capacity, so the exclusion applies	Held: Triable issue — record does not conclusively establish Helm acted pursuant to authority that would trigger the exclusion; SJ improper
Whether DI’s release of the contractor destroyed Motorists’ subrogation rights	DI: release executed but Motorists had not paid; policy subrogation transfers rights only to the extent of payment	Motorists: release extinguished insurer’s subrogation rights per Zourelias	Held: Motorists failed to show entitlement to SJ — subrogation here had not vested because insurer made no payment; release did not conclusively defeat insurer’s claim on summary judgment

401 Fourth St., Inc. v. Investors Ins. Grp., 879 A.2d 166 (Pa. 2005) (discusses meaning of "collapse" and suggests possible scope beyond sudden falling)
McEwing v. Lititz Mut. Ins. Co., 77 A.3d 639 (Pa. Super. 2013) (insured bears burden to prove coverage; insurer bears burden to prove exclusions)
Continental Cas. Co. v. Pro Machine, 916 A.2d 1111 (Pa. Super. 2007) (insurance-policy interpretation is a question of law; construing policy language)
Kane v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 841 A.2d 1038 (Pa. Super. 2003) (policy language construed to ascertain parties’ intent)
Zourelias v. Erie Ins. Grp., 691 A.2d 963 (Pa. Super. 1997) (insured’s release can affect insurer subrogation rights in certain contexts)