The Dumases noticed a cracking concrete problem by at least 2011. During the spring and summer of 2012, Mr. Dumas tried repairing some of the cracks on his own. He noticed the patched cracks worsening within six months.

The Dumases filed a claim with USAA on or about June 25, 2015. An engineer hired by USAA inspected the house a month later and issued a report stating that the cracking arose in part from defective concrete, that the problem was already present when the Dumases had purchased their home, and that the resulting damage had occurred over time.

The Dumases hired their own expert, who opined that the cracking was caused in part by high levels of pyrrhotite in the concrete, which caused swelling and cracking when exposed to oxygen and water. He said that a house with pyrrhotite would eventually collapse, although he could not say that would happen in less than 25 years, and that the concrete would need to be replaced in two to three years. He also said that the damage to the house had not occurred suddenly (with “sudden” defined by him as “a break that happens almost immediately”) and that there had been no “falling-in” or “caving-in” of the foundation walls or the house as a whole or an imminent peril that the walls or house would do so.

USAA denied the claim and the Dumases sued for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”) and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (“CUIPA”).

USAA moved for summary judgment.

The District Court’s Decision

The district court granted USAA’s motion.

In its decision, the district court found that the damage to the Dumases’ home “was not sudden and in fact occurred gradually over time.”

According to the district court, this was “fatal to their claim.”

The district court rejected the Dumases’ argument that they were entitled to coverage because, whether or not the loss was sudden, the foundation of their home had been substantially impaired. According to the district court, this was “not the relevant inquiry given the precise terms of their policy,” which expressly defined the term “collapse.”

Additionally, the district court was not persuaded by the Dumases’ argument that the damage to their property was covered because the USAA policy did “not exclude chemical reactions.” Among other things, the district court ruled that, to the extent that the Dumases argued that the effects of a chemical reaction was covered under the collapse provision of their policy, the policy language made it clear that the policy excluded coverage for cracking that predated a collapse. Cracking only was covered if it was “caused by (not the cause of) a collapse,” the district court said.

The district court concluded by granting summary judgment in favor of USAA.

The case is Dumas v. USAA General Indemnity Co., No. 3:17-cv-01083(JAM) (D. Conn. Aug. 6, 2019). Attorneys involved include: For Alexander J. Dumas, Margaret A. Dumas, Plaintiffs: Brian D. Danforth, LEAD ATTORNEY, Tolisano & Danforth, LLC, Ellington, CT. For USAA General Indemnity Company, Defendant: Alice Mary Forbes, Law Office of Alice Forbes, Mashpee, MA; John L. Laudati, Murphy Laudati Kiel Buttler & Rattigan, LLC, Farmington, CT; William J. Forbes, William J. Forbes, New Britain, CT.