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.
The appeals court noted that, at the original trial, the judge accepted the engineers' opinions that “the precipitating cause of the damage was the lack of stabilization devices, such as collar ties, in the attic, and that the damage is not related to settling or shrinkage.” In addition, she found “that the weight of snow and ice from the winter… when coupled with the original construction design of the roof, caused most of the damage.” However, the appeals court went on, no reading of the judge's findings could lead to the conclusion that only the weight of the snow and ice caused the damage.
The issue therefore turned on whether the collapse exclusion on the policy applied . The court found “collapse, within the meaning of the policy, is a perceptible event or state caused by a specific degenerative process…. There are no degrees of collapse.” Furthermore, no other exclusions apply. However, the collapse exclusion does not apply because it is preceded by the following language: “… if loss or damage by a Covered Cause of Loss results, we will pay for that resulting loss or damage.” Covered causes are all causes except those excluded or limited. The trial judge found that damage was caused by both faulty design and the weight of snow and ice. The latter is a covered cause of loss which is not excluded. Therefore the faulty design exclusion does not bar coverage. The exclusion does not include an anti-concurrent cause provision, which would bar coverage for damage due to certain causes regardless of otherwise covered causes of damage.