Rosen, George vs. State Farm General Insurance Company
Year 2002
Court California Supreme Court
Case Number S108308
Issue
  • Coverage
State
  • California

Imminent collapse must be covered under the collapse coverage section otherwise the result is unconscionable.

Related Docs
Author UP's brief was written pro bono by Brian Miles and Joel M. Westerbrook of Chipman Miles and Associates.
Related Cases
401 Fourth Street Inc. vs. Investors Insurance Group
Year: 2003
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: No. 270 MAP 2003
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Since the term “collapse” in the policy is ambiguous and connotes only a substantial impairment of a building’s structural integrity, there must be coverage for “imminent collapse” Court quotes UP’s brief.
Dana Corp. vs. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., et al.
Year: 1996
Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
Case Number: 17171-6-II
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • Indiana
County of San Diego v. Cigna Property and Casualty Company
Year: 2002
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 1
Case Number: D038707
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • California

Duty of insurance company to cover claims not specifically addressed by court. Companion case to Ace Property.
Fairfield Insurance Co. vs. Stephens Martin Paving
Year: 2003
Court: Texas Supreme Court
Case Number: RP 04-0728
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • Texas

The “all sums” language in a liability policy of insurance should be construed to provide coverage for gross negligence and punitive damages.