Collapse Claim Fails Due To Defectively Designed Roof and Deck

    The insured's claim for collapse of his roof and deck failed due to defective design and other exclusions under the policy. Dudar v. State Farm & Cas. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52706 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2024). 

    The insured submitted a claim to State Farm for damage to the roof ("Roof Claim"). State Farm's adjuster placed a ladder on the deck to access the roof and a portion of the deck collapsed. The insured then reported a claim to State Farm for damage to the deck ("Deck Claim"). The claims were denied and suit was filed.

    The roof had leaked on several occasions prior to submission of the Roof Claim. On February 25, 2022, the insured discovered that a branch had cut a hole in the tarp, causing water to leak into the home. The insured performed repairs on the roof. On March 8, 2022, a storm caused more water to seep through the tarp into the ceilings and walls. Thereafter, the Roof Claim was submitted.

    The damage from the leaking roof and the deck collapse were caused by rotting. The rotting, in turn, was caused by a combination of defective building design and resulting water damage from rain and storms over the years. The roof and deck were constructed to provide mutual support to one another. The roof did not contain an adequate slope, which caused water to seep down into the walls and flooring rather than to flow downward and away from the property. Over time, penetrating water caused portions of the roof, the floor, and the supporting wall between the roof and deck to rot. 

    The defective design also caused penetrating water to rot the supporting wall of the deck over the years. The lack of flashing between the deck and house caused water to rot the band joist, which corroded and loosened from the deck fasteners. Ultimately, the rotting caused the deck to collapse when the insured and the adjuster placed a ladder on the deck to inspect the roof. 

    The policy included a Losses Not Insured provision providing that "losses directly and immediately caused by . . . wear, tear, marring, scratching, deterioration, inherent vice, latent defect and mechanical breaks, or rust, or wet or dry rot" were not covered. Plaintiff's claims were excluded by the "wet or dry rot" exclusion and the "deterioration" exclusion. Also excluded were losses caused by "defect, weakness, inadequacy, fault or unsoundness in design, specifications, workmanship, or construction of any property." Here, there was no dispute that the property's design and building were defective, which, in combination with years of rain and storm water, caused the property's roof, walls and floor to rot.

    Nevertheless, the insured claimed that losses from the Roof Claim and Deck Claim were both covered under the policy's additional "Collapse" coverage. The provision provided,

11 Collapse. We insure for direct physical loss to covered property involving collapse of a building or any part of a building caused only by one or more of the following:

    a. . . . windstorm or hail . . . or water damage . . . 

        (2) water damage means accidental discharge or leakage of water or steam as the direct result of the breaking or cracking of any part of a system or appliance containing water or steam;

    b. hidden decay.

    . . . 

    d. weight of contents, equipment, animals or people.

    . . . 

    f. use of defective material or methods in construction, remodelling or renovation if the collapse occurs during the course of construction, remodelling or renovation.

    The insured contended that the damages associated with the Roof Claim were covered because a "collapse resulting from a deluge of stormwater" occurred. The insured argued that the Roof Claim was also covered under the windstorm or water damage coverage, the hidden decay coverage, and the use of defective materials or methods during construction coverage. For the Deck Claim, the insured argued that the Collapse provision's hidden decay and weight of contents coverages applied. 

    The insured had to prove that the collapse of a building was "caused only by one or more of the" specific causes set forth in the provision. Here, the damages from the leaking roof and the deck collapse were caused by rotting, which in turn was caused by a combination of defective building design and water damage from rain and storms over the years. These causes were not among the specific causes set forth in the Collapse provision. Accordingly, even if one of the Collapse provision's coverage categories applied, the claims were not covered because the collapses were not caused "only by" one of the specific causes set forth in the provision.

    Further, none of the coverage categories in the Collapse provision applied. The "decay" was not "hidden. The insured admitted that he discovered rotting and deterioration in the roof before the loss occurred. For the Deck Claim, foam sealant in the area of the decay indicated that the conditions were known before the deck collapsed. Therefore, the decay was not hidden. 

    For water damage, the insured did not point to any evidence that the water that damaged the property came from "a system or appliance containing water or steam" as required for the coverage to apply. Instead, the insured alleged that the water damage came "from rain and storms over the years." 

    The defective construction or renovation coverage did not apply because the roof's original defective construction caused the collapse associated with the Roof Claim. The collapse did not occur "during the course" of the original construction. 

    Finally, the windstorm and weight of contents coverages did not apply to the Roof Claim or Deck Claim. These coverages applied only when a loss involving a collapse was "caused only by one or more of the" specific causes set forth in the Collapse provision. Even if the court assumed that there was some causal connection between a windstorm and the leaking roof and weight of contents and the deck collapse, these were not the only causes of the collapses. Instead, the damages from the leaking roof and the deck collapse were caused by rotting, which in turn was caused by a combination of defective building design and water damage from rain and storms over the years. 

    State Farm's motion for summary judgment was granted and the insured's motion for partial summary judgment was denied.