Court Grants Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment After Insured Fails to Provide Evidence of Systemic Collapse

    With the insurer conceding that there was evidence of potential collapse at portions of eight specific building locations, the court granted the insurer's motion for partial summary judgment in determining no additional buildings suffered from collapse. Exec. 1801 LLC v. Eagle W. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEZXIS 5923 (D. Or. Jan. 11, 2024). 

    Executive 1801 owned a group of six buildings with eighty-six residential units. The court previously granted partial summary judgment on Executive 1801's rain damage claim, leaving only claims regarding collapse. Eagle insured "the property for direct physical los or damage to Covered Property . . . caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of loss."  The policy further provided, "We will pay for direct physical loss or damage to Covered Property, caused by collapse of a building or any part of a building insured under this policy, if the collapse is caused by . . . hidden decay."

    Eagle moved for partial summary judgment on the collapse claim. Eagle acknowledged that Executive 1801 had presented some evidence such that a jury could reasonably conclude that a covered collapse occurred, but only in eight specific instances. Eagle argued that summary judgment should be granted on all potential claims of collapse except those instances. Executive 1801 argued that a jury could look at the eight specific instances of collapse and conclude that widespread and systemic conditions existed at access stairways, walkways, and balconies. Executive 1801, however, offered no evidence to back up this conjecture, maintaining simply that the photographs were representative of what happened throughout the property. 

See also  LBJ's 1964 Lincoln Continental Convertible Is Our Bring a Trailer Auction Pick of the Day

    Executive 1801 did not point to any evidence or photographs that showed downward movement in any additional locations beyond the eight that were conceded by Eagle. Rather, Executive 1801 argued that a jury could conclude that it was more likely than not that other building components fell some distance. Executive 1801's allegations of widespread, systemic collapse, without any evidence to back them up, were insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

    Therefore, Eagle's motion was granted.