Bradish v. British American Assur. Co. of Toronto, Canada

• Decision Date: 08 March 1960
• Citation: 101 N.W.2d 814,9 Wis.2d 601
• Parties: William L. BRADISH, Respondent, v. BRITISH AMERICA ASSURANCE CO. OF TORONTO, CANADA, a Foreign Corporation, Appellant.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 814

101 N.W.2d 814

9 Wis.2d 601

William L. BRADISH, Respondent, v. BRITISH AMERICA ASSURANCE CO. OF TORONTO, CANADA, a Foreign

Corporation, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 8, 1960.

Hughes, Anderson, Davis & Walker, Harold Witkin, Superior, for appellant.

Borg, McGill & Moodie, Superior, for respondent.

BROWN, Justice.

The case turns upon the meaning to be ascribed to the words 'collapse of building(s) or any part thereof', as 'collapse' is used in the insurance policy. The plaintiff contends that there was a collapse of a part of the building and the defendant contends that there was no collapse whatever. On the facts as above stated the trial court found that there had been a collapse within the meaning of the policy.

Appellant cites numerous dictionaries defining 'collapse' which, in general, paraphrases the Century Dictionary as follows:

'To fall together or into an irregular mass or flattened form, through the loss of firm connection or rigidity and support of the parts, or loss of the contents, as a building through the falling in of its sides, or an inflated bladder from escape of the air contained in it.'

Appellant submits that coverage against a collapse is limited to such an occurrence. Of course, such a falling would be a collapse. It is undisputed that this wall did not fall into an irregular mass or flattened form. The question is whether something short of a wall reduced to a heap of rubble will satisfy the term 'collapse' as used in the policy.

Two very recent cases have been reported requiring the interpretation of collapse coverage as the appellant's policy uses the term.

The first such case is Travelers Fire Insurance Co. v. Whaley, 10 Cir., 1959, 272 F.2d 288, 290-291. In that case the court said:

'* * * So here, we must construe the word in the context it was used by the parties in executing this insurance contract. Did the parties intend there should be no coverage and, therefore, no recoverable loss, unless there was a complete collapse and tumbling down of the foundation wall, so as to cause the superstructure to come crashing down in a heap of rubble; or did they mean the more realistic situation that if the foundation distintegrated by settling, pulling away or cracking so that it would no longer support the house, that there was a partial collapse? * * *.

'* * * If the appellant intended that the word 'collapse' should be ascribed the abstract dictionary definition it now contends for, it should have so stated. In the absence of such an expressed intent, we think it more realistic to define the terms in...