Lippi v. United Services Automobile Assn., AC43470

Plaintiffs (Kris & Gina Lippi) owned a 1998 house insured by USAA; homeowners policy excluded "settling, cracking, ... of ... walls" and defined "collapse" as "a sudden falling or caving in" or "sudden breaking apart or deformation" that renders a building unfit for use, with limited additional coverages.
In 2016 plaintiffs discovered pattern cracks in basement walls; contractor suspected pyrrhotite-induced deterioration of the concrete.
Engineers (plaintiffs’ and defendant’s) agreed the damage developed slowly, observed cracking but no displacement, bowing, or immediate need for foundation replacement; home remained safe and occupied.
USAA denied the claim relying on the policy’s cracking exclusion; plaintiffs sued for breach of contract and extracontractual relief, claiming the damage constituted a covered "collapse."
The trial court granted USAA summary judgment, concluding the damage was gradual cracking (not a "sudden caving in") and therefore excluded; plaintiffs appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the basement damage qualifies as a "collapse" under the policy ("sudden falling or caving in").	The cracks reflect the walls "yielding" to internal pyrrhotite expansion — i.e., a "caving in" covered by the policy.	The damage is limited to cracking without displacement/shift/bowing and thus falls within the policy's cracking exclusion, not the collapse definition.	Court: No. Mere cracking, absent displacement or structural failure, does not satisfy the policy's "caving in" collapse definition.
Whether "sudden" in the collapse definition can be read as merely "unexpected" (so gradual pyrrhotite damage could still qualify).	"Sudden" should be read as "unexpected," so gradual but unforeseen pyrrhotite damage may trigger coverage.	"Sudden" denotes a temporally abrupt event in this context; gradual deterioration over years is not "sudden."	Court: "Sudden" includes a temporally abrupt requirement; gradual cracking is not "sudden."
Whether the trial court applied the correct summary judgment standard (burden-shifting).	The court shifted the burden and USAA failed to prove the home did not cave in.	USAA met its burden by submitting engineers' statements showing slow degradation and no collapse; plaintiffs failed to identify specific contradictory facts.	Court: Proper standard applied; once USAA met its burden, plaintiffs failed to present specific facts creating a genuine issue.

Jemiola v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., 335 Conn. 117 (Conn. 2019) (interpreting collapse language and holding standing, occupiable home with only cracks not a covered collapse)
Buell Indus., Inc. v. Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 259 Conn. 527 (Conn. 2002) ("sudden" construed to include a temporally abrupt requirement in policy context)
Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 310 Conn. 304 (Conn. 2013) (summary judgment burden principles for movant)
Brusby v. Metropolitan District, 160 Conn. App. 638 (Conn. App. 2015) (nonmovant must recite specific facts contradicting movant on summary judgment)
Zulick v. Patrons Mut. Ins. Co., 287 Conn. 367 (Conn. 2008) (extracontractual claims fail if breach-of-contract claim fails)
Warzecha v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 206 Conn. App. 188 (Conn. App. 2021) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Sirois v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 342 F. Supp. 3d 235 (D. Conn. 2018) (distinguished — court found "caving in" ambiguous where evidence showed bowing/shifting beyond mere cracking)