This case is Driscoll v. Providence Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 867 N.E.2d 806 (Mass.App.Ct. 2007) . Upon inspecting their Webster rental property to prepare it for a new tenant, Driscoll discovered damage to the property, including outward-leaning outside walls, ceiling cracks, a two-inch drop in the roof, and other problems. A claim was timely submitted to the insurance company. Providence denied the claim on the basis of its expert's opinion that the damage was caused by faulty roof design, a cause of loss excluded from Driscolls' policy. Driscoll hired his own engineer, who inspected the house and determined that faulty design had combined with the weight of snow from the prior winter to result in the property damage. Driscoll then filed a lawsuit against Providence and the trial court ruled that the property damage was covered by the policy. Providence appealed.

Providence argued that damage caused by weight of snow and ice coupled with construction design of the roof was not within coverage for collapse, even if collapse had occurred. The coverage applied only if one or more named perils, such as weight of snow and ice, caused damage. Design defect was not a named peril. Driscoll argued that the exclusion for faulty workmanship or construction did not apply to damage from faulty roof design and the weight of snow and ice since the exclusion contained no anti-concurrent cause provision barring coverage for damage due to certain causes regardless of otherwise covered causes of damage.