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 Rosen-George-vs.-State-Farm-Gen.-Ins.-Co.-Application-for-leave-to-file-brief.pdf 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.