Jowite Limited Partnership v. Federal Insurance Company, 20-1937

Jowite owns three apartment buildings; Building 300 exhibited long‑term settlement and structural problems first noted circa 1999.
In 2013 a new manager engaged engineers and a contractor; repairs (hydraulic jacks) revealed additional structural defects, including failed foundation/footer near the back wall.
Jowite’s experts attributed the damage to inadequate foundation design and construction; Federal’s engineer attributed damage to ongoing settlement and soil with organic matter and irregular footings.
Jowite submitted an insurance claim under an all‑risk policy; Federal denied coverage citing the policy’s planning/design/materials/maintenance exclusion (the design exclusion) and the settling exclusion.
The district court granted summary judgment to Federal, concluding the design exclusion barred coverage; the Fourth Circuit affirmed, agreeing the ensuing‑loss exception could not be read to allow the same event to be both the excluded defect and the covered peril.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the policy’s ensuing‑loss exception to the design exclusion can apply where the collapse (or severe impairment) is alleged to be both the excluded defect and the covered peril	Jowite: the collapse can be both the peril and the ensuing loss, so the exception restores coverage	Federal: allowing that reading would nullify the exclusion; the ensuing‑loss exception cannot apply when loss is not separable from the defective design	Court: affirmed that the ensuing‑loss exception cannot reasonably be read to let the same event serve as both the excluded defect and the covered peril; design exclusion bars coverage
Whether the settling exclusion should be defeated by the efficient proximate cause rule (i.e., defective design was the true proximate cause, not settling)	Jowite: efficient proximate cause shows defective design, not settling, was the proximate cause so exclusion should not apply	Federal: damage is caused by or results from settling; exclusion applies	Court: did not squarely decide the settling exclusion issue but observed that the outcome would be unchanged; judgment affirmed based on design exclusion

Mitchell v. AARP Life Ins. Program, New York Life Ins. Co., 779 A.2d 1061 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2001) (insurance‑policy interpretation follows general contract principles)
Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Maryland Yacht Club, Inc., 742 A.2d 79 (Md. 1999) (policy construction principles and plain‑meaning rule)
Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lowe, 761 A.2d 997 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000) (apply policy language and layperson meanings)
Finci v. American Cas. Co., 593 A.2d 1069 (Md. 1991) (insurer bears burden to prove an exclusion applies)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard)