462 F.Supp.3d 113
D. Conn.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Steven and Liette Van Natta owned (then lost) a Bethany, CT second home; on March 16, 2016 Steven discovered extensive water and mold damage after a burst pipe.
- The Great Lakes all‑risk homeowners Policy contained a Freezing Exclusion (with a Heat Exception for reasonable care to maintain heat) and a broad Mold Exclusion excluding loss "involving in any way" mold.
- Great Lakes’ adjuster and retained engineer concluded a freeze‑up caused a pipe rupture and extensive mold; evidentiary support included electricity and oil records, thermostat condition, and weather data.
- Plaintiffs had the interior gutted and paid ~ $34,055 for remediation, later sold the property, and seek damages equal to estimated reconstruction costs (did not rebuild); their reconstruction estimate relied on an expert’s ballpark $150–$200/sq ft figure.
- Great Lakes moved for summary judgment arguing (1) the Freezing Exclusion applies, (2) the Mold Exclusion bars coverage, and (3) Plaintiffs’ reconstruction damages are speculative.
- Court ruled: freeze caused the loss (no genuine dispute); a triable issue exists whether Van Natta took reasonable care to maintain heat (Heat Exception); Mold Exclusion bars coverage for most interior areas where mold is plainly present but not for garage/storage/office/crawl; damages for the remaining areas are not speculative and survive summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the loss caused by freeze‑up? | Van Natta: loss could be from corrosion or other non‑freeze causes; he visited in Feb so timing inconsistent with early Jan freeze. | Great Lakes: adjuster and engineer conclude freeze‑up caused pipe burst; supporting billing, thermostat and weather data. | Held: Freeze caused the loss; no genuine dispute. |
| Does the Heat Exception (reasonable care to maintain heat) apply? | Van Natta: he checked the house in Feb, serviced furnace, and acted reasonably for a one‑month absence. | Great Lakes: Van Natta unreasonably failed to arrange checks, thermostats’ batteries likely died, no oil deliveries—objective lack of care. | Held: Triable issue exists; summary judgment denied on this ground. |
| Does the Mold Exclusion bar coverage for the loss? | Van Natta: seeks recovery for water damage (covered), not mold remediation; water damage required gutting irrespective of mold. | Great Lakes: Exclusion excludes any loss involving mold; because mold is present it bars coverage for those areas. | Held: Mold Exclusion, read against insurer, bars coverage for areas where mold was plainly involved (most interior rooms); does not bar coverage as to garage, storage above garage, crawlspace, and office. |
| Are Plaintiffs’ claimed reconstruction damages speculative? | Van Natta: Maguire’s experienced ballpark estimate and damage analysis provide a reasonable basis; proof need not be exact; failure to rebuild does not preclude recovery. | Great Lakes: estimate is vague/"very ballpark‑ish," lacks detailed measurements, contingent, and Plaintiffs had opportunity to obtain better estimates before sale. | Held: Maguire’s estimate suffices to make a prima facie showing; damages are not speculative as a matter of law; summary judgment denied on damages for uncovered areas. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burdens)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (reasonable inference/summary judgment)
- Hammer v. Lumberman’s Mut. Cas. Co., 214 Conn. 573 (insurance policy interpretation under Connecticut law)
- Buell Indus., Inc. v. Greater New York Mut. Ins. Co., 259 Conn. 527 (policy construction/intent of parties)
- Capstone Bldg. Corp. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 308 Conn. 760 (insurer bears burden proving exclusion; insured bears burden proving exception)
- Leisure Resort Tech., Inc. v. Trading Cove Assocs., 277 Conn. 21 (contingency rule for speculative damages)
- American Diamond Exch., Inc. v. Alpert, 302 Conn. 494 (proof of damages; reasonable certainty standard)