98 So. 3d 74
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Kings Ridge Community Association sues its insurer, Sagamore, after a fire loss-like event to the clubhouse is deemed not a “collapse.”
- Policy is all-risks BOP with a dedicated “Additional Coverage for Collapse” and express collapse definitions.
- February 24, 2010 event: exterior west-wing doors shook; drop ceiling and soffits deflected; roof depressed; eleven roof trusses deflected ~12 inches.
- Engineers for both sides agree trusses failed due to a combination of preexisting modifications, heavier HVAC units, and roof ponding; structure deemed dangerous and unsafe.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Sagamore, concluding no collapse under policy; Association appeals; opinion reverses and remands.
- Court emphasizes ambiguity in the collapse provision and resolves in favor of coverage under the insured-friendly interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy’s collapse provision is ambiguous | Association: language susceptible to more than one interpretation; favors coverage. | Sagamore: collapse requires a more definite falling-down; not satisfied here. | Ambiguous; resolves in favor of coverage. |
| Whether the drop ceiling, roof, and trusses constitute collapse under 5.d.(l)(a) | Association: the components fell inward and downward, meeting “falling down” and “caving in.” | Sagamore: building not fully down; not collapse under plain terms. | Yes, constitutes collapse under 5.d.(l)(a). |
| How 5.d.(l)(b)-(d) affect standing and collapse status | Association: these subparts do not negate collapse when parts have fallen. | Sagamore: since parts are not standing, 5.d.(l)(d) would preclude collapse. | These provisions do not preclude collapse; ambiguity remains resolved in insured’s favor. |
| Relation between Additional Coverage for Collapse and exclusions in paragraph 3 | Association: 2.(i) excludes collapse except as provided; exclusions cannot vitiate coverage. | Sagamore: general exclusions could limit collapse coverage. | Exclusions do not defeat the enhanced collapse coverage; ambiguity persists. |
| Whether the policy is ambiguous and construed in favor of insured coverage | Association: the language supports coverage. | Sagamore: language supports non-coverage. | Policy deemed ambiguous; interpret in favor of coverage; reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Malbco Holdings, LLC v. AMCO Ins. Co., 629 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (D. Or. 2009) (policy language identical; truss/floor-collapse-like scenario)
- Mt. Zion Baptist Church of Marietta v. GuideOne Elite Ins. Co., 808 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (N.D. Ga. 2011) (similar policy language and collapse analysis)
- Rapp B. Properties, LLC v. RLI Ins. Co., 65 A.D.3d 923, 885 N.Y.S.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) (appellate decisions addressing collapse coverage language)
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (standards for reviewing summary judgment and contract interpretation)
- Menendez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 70 So.3d 566 (Fla. 2011) (ambiguity resolved in insured’s favor when reasonable interpretations exist)