In court, Cummings argued the additional damages were compensable by the comprehensive coverage in his policy. Phoenix argued the corrosion was part of pre-existing damage and normal wear and tear, which are excluded causes of loss for both collision and comprehensive coverage. The trial judges were not convinced by Cummings' arguments and ruled in favor of Phoenix. Cummings appealed.

According to Cummings, Advanced had stored his car outside while it was being repaired, and rainwater had leaked into the box through the vehicle's damaged hood. In support of this theory, Cummings presented evidence he had collected himself. He said he lived near the Advanced facility, and he had observed his vehicle sitting outside on multiple occasions, which was corroborated by photos Cummings had taken. He also submitted his own photos of the damage to the interior of the auto's fuse box, including the corroded wires. 

The court was skeptical. The manager of the Advanced facility confirmed that Cummings' auto had been stored outside at certain times while it was being repaired. However, he also testified the vehicle had been kept indoors when technicians were repairing the physical damage. Phoenix also submitted the evidence that it had used to support the initial denial of Cummmings' additional claims, which included testimony from Advanced employees and through Advanced's business records that multiple certified appraisers believed the corrosion had a more long-term cause than a handful of storms. Damage resulting from normal wear and tear was excluded from both collision and comprehensive coverage. 

Therefore, since Phoenix had had a good faith reason for denying the claim, there had been no breach of contract. 

Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 

Cummings also claimed Phoenix' denial of his additional claims had breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing. He alleged that Phoenix had knowingly denied his allegedly compensable claim. However, his bad faith claim would only succeed if he proved Phoenix had acted in bad faith beyond a reasonable doubt. 

As just discussed, Phoenix had based its denial of the additional claims on the policy exclusion for wear and tear and pre-existing damages. Cummings had presented no evidence that made the court think otherwise. Therefore, Cummings' claim for the breach of good faith was denied. 

Unearned Benefits

Cummings also made a claim for quantum meruit, meaning he had performed some action for Phoenix for which he had not been fairly compensated. No evidence presented by either party gave the court a reason to believe Phoenix had received any type of benefit from Cummings that would necessitate compensation. The judges therefore denied Cummings' claim for quantum meruit. 

Conclusion

For these reasons, the court ordered judgment be entered for Phoenix on all of Cummings' claims.  

Editor's Note: Cummings' claim for the corrosion damage in his car's fuse box was not compensable under collision coverage because, unlike the physical damage to the front of Cummings' car, the corrosion was not directly caused by collision with another object. He argued the corrosion should be covered under the comprehensive coverage in his policy because it allegedly covered any damages to the car caused by something other than a collision. 

Unfortunately, Phoenix argued the corrosion damage was part of the normal wear and tear on Cummings' vehicle. This position was supported by the testimony of three certified auto appraisers who all agreed the corrosion was of a nature that could not be explained by intermittent rainfall over a short period of time. Damages due to normal wear and tear are excluded from coverage precisely because they occur gradually and are not the type of sudden and accidental losses covered by an insurance policy. 

Read More: 

What is Collision

Insurance Coverage Q&A: When Donuts Land you in Cold Water 

The Myth of Full Coverage