Wanda Jean Thiele v. Kentucky Growers Insurance Company, 522 S.W.3d 198

Hiram Campbell bought a homeowner’s policy from Kentucky Growers in 2004; the policy covered his Brodhead, KY home and auto-renewed after his 2005 death. His daughter Wanda Thiele moved in and became executrix of the estate.
In January 2011 Thiele discovered extensive termite damage (flooring, wall paneling, other structural members) after moving a refrigerator and filed a claim under the policy’s “Collapse” coverage for loss caused by hidden insect decay.
The insurer denied the claim because no part of the dwelling had "collapsed" under the insurer’s interpretation; Thiele sued for a declaratory judgment in Rockcastle Circuit Court.
The trial court ruled for Thiele; the Court of Appeals reversed; the Kentucky Supreme Court (majority) affirmed the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court majority held Kentucky precedent (Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Curtsinger) defines "collapse" in a way that precludes coverage absent a falling-in or sudden breakdown; it declined to adopt the broader majority rule used in some jurisdictions.
Justice Wright dissented, arguing the factual record supports a finding that parts of the residence "broke down" (one element of Curtsinger’s two-part definition), that ambiguity should be construed against the insurer, and that the issue of collapse was factual for the trial court.

Issue	Thiele's Argument	Kentucky Growers' Argument	Held
Does termite damage constitute a covered "collapse" under the policy?	Termite damage substantially impaired structural integrity and caused parts of the building to "break down," satisfying collapse coverage.	No "collapse" occurred — Curtsinger requires a falling-in or sudden going-to-pieces, which is absent here.	Held for insurer: under Curtsinger there was no collapse as a matter of law; coverage denied.
Should Kentucky abandon Curtsinger’s narrow definition in favor of the broader majority rule (coverage when structural integrity is substantially impaired)?	Yes — adopt the majority rule that collapse includes substantial impairment of structural integrity even if not imminent.	No — retain Curtsinger’s plain-language/sudden-falling definition; courts should not broaden contract meaning.	Held for insurer: Court declines to adopt the majority rule and retains Curtsinger.
Is the policy ambiguous re: "collapse," requiring contra proferentem or reasonable-expectations analysis favoring the insured?	Policy fails to define "collapse;" ambiguity and reasonable expectations favor coverage; facts on collapse are for the trial court.	The term is plain and ordinary; no ambiguity exists and Curtsinger controls.	Majority: term is clear under controlling precedent; no reformation. Dissent: disputes factual sufficiency and would resolve ambiguities for insured.

Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Curtsinger, 361 S.W.2d 762 (Ky. 1962) (adopts a common‑meaning definition of "collapse" emphasizing falling‑in or sudden going‑to‑pieces)
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 306 S.W.3d 69 (Ky. 2010) (insurance contract interpretation is a legal question reviewed de novo)
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nolan, 10 S.W.3d 129 (Ky. 1999) (clear policy terms receive plain and ordinary meaning)
Bidwell v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 367 S.W.3d 585 (Ky. 2012) (limitations/exclusions must be clearly stated and operative terms defined)
Eyler v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 824 S.W.2d 855 (Ky. 1992) (ambiguities in insurance exclusions are construed narrowly against the insurer)
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Powell‑Walton‑Milward, Inc., 870 S.W.2d 223 (Ky. 1994) (policy exclusions must be carefully expressed and operative terms clearly defined)