Equinox on the Battenkill Mgmt. Ass'n, Inc. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co.

Citation125 A.3d 893
Decision Date07 August 2015
Docket NumberNo. 14–087.,14–087.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont
Parties EQUINOX ON THE BATTENKILL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.

Joel P. Iannuzzi of Cleary Shahi & Aicher, P.C., Rutland, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Richard J. Windish and Susan J. Manley of Hayes & Windish, Woodstock, for DefendantAppellee.

Present: REIBER, C.J., DOOLEY, SKOGLUND and ROBINSON, JJ., and MORRIS, Supr. J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.

REIBER, C.J.

¶ 1 Equinox on the Battenkill Management Association, Inc., appeals a superior court summary-judgment order denying insurance coverage. The appeal arises out of a declaratory judgment action against management association's insurer, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, Inc., to determine coverage under a commercial general liability policy for damage to cantilevered balconies on condominium units in Manchester.

¶ 2. In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether our decision in Gage v. Union Mutual Fire Insurance Co. remains good law with regards to the meaning of "collapse" and whether Gage controls the result here. 122 Vt. 246, 169 A.2d 29 (1961). We conclude that the policy language in this dispute is broader than the language in Gage and that therefore Gage does not control. We reverse the trial court's summary judgment and remand to resolve disputed questions of fact and interpret the applicable policy language.

¶ 3. Management association manages a condominium complex in Manchester. Many units in the condominium complex were constructed with cantilevered balconies. The balconies have a history of repairs. In 2012, management association sought coverage for damage to the balconies, which insurer denied. The 2012 insurance policy between management association and insurer provides that insurer "will not pay for ‘loss' caused by or resulting from ... [f]aulty, inadequate, or defective ... [d]esign, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, [or] compaction" (the "defective-workmanship exclusion"). However, the policy also provides that "if ‘loss' by a Covered Cause of Loss results, [insurer] will pay for that resulting ‘loss.’ " In the endorsement entitled "Additional Coverage–Collapse," the policy provides, "We will pay for ‘loss' caused by or resulting from risks of direct physical ‘loss' involving collapse of ‘buildings' or any part of ‘buildings' caused only by one or more of the following: ... [h]idden decay." The policy defines "loss" as "accidental loss or damage," and "buildings" as "buildings or structures." The policy does not define "collapse," except to exclude "settling, cracking, shrinkage, bulging or expansion."

¶ 4. In its statement of undisputed facts submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment, management association claimed that when it carried out a deck-replacement program in 2007 and 2008, it encountered certain structural problems at Unit I–4, including water damage to sheathing and studs behind lower-level exterior clapboards and cracking in several exposed joists beneath the second-floor balcony. Steps were taken to strengthen the second-floor balcony. Management association discovered similar problems at other units and took steps to reinforce the balconies at those units in 2008, 2010, and 2011. According to the statement of undisputed facts, none of these repairs or improvements required exposing balcony joists within the interior of the units.

¶ 5. Management association claims that it first discovered evidence of damage on the interior portions of the cantilevered balcony joists in September 2012, while inspecting the balcony at Unit K–3, which had undergone a "partial collapse."1 Prior to this inspection, none of the interior portions of any of the joists had been inspected or exposed. Management association further claims that during this time the balcony at Unit M–7 also suffered a "partial collapse."

¶ 6. In October 2012, management association filed a first-party claim with insurer under the "Additional Coverage" endorsement, alleging that hidden decay had caused the damage. Management association seeks coverage for the balconies that are affected by the same kind of damage that occurred at K–3 and M–7.2 The summary-judgment record reveals the efforts of the parties to engage expert support for their respective positions regarding complex questions of damage and causation. These efforts focused on the K–3 and M–7 balconies.

¶ 7. The association hired Criterium–Lalancette Engineers to conduct a visual inspection later that month. Criterium–Lalancette noted significant evidence of moisture infiltration in its October 23 report. The report recommended that the balconies be taken out of service.

¶ 8. Management association claims that the M–7 balcony subsequently suffered a full collapse at some point in November 2012. While securing the building against winter weather, management association removed supporting jack posts and disconnected railings connecting the balcony to the building, "resulting in the balcony falling to the deck below."

¶ 9. Insurer hired Barbara Knight of Knight Consulting Engineers, Inc., to conduct an inspection at the condominium to determine the cause of the damage to the balconies. Knight conducted an inspection on November 2. Her report from November 12 noted that she did not observe any rot on exposed areas of the balcony joists, but did opine that construction and design issues contributed to the balcony failures. Insurer denied coverage for the damage to the balconies in February 2013.

¶ 10. Management association requested that insurer reconsider and provided additional evidence. Knight reviewed the additional evidence, including photographs of where the balcony joists penetrated the building wall that revealed internal rot. Based on the additional evidence, Knight issued a supplemental report in April 2013 that attributed the structural failure to rot and deterioration of the joists.

¶ 11. In May 2013, insurer reaffirmed its no-coverage position. In its second denial letter, insurer raised objections to management association's claim under the policy's endorsement for "Additional Coverage" for "collapse." Insurer claimed that the cantilevered balconies did not actually collapse, and also that, even if the 2012 damage did fit within the definition of "collapse," the cause could not be for causes listed in the endorsement because management association allegedly had knowledge of defects in the balconies as early as 2007.

¶ 12. Legal proceedings began in August 2013 when management association filed an action for declaratory judgment in the Superior Court, Civil Division, Bennington Unit. Management association sought an order declaring that the policy provides coverage for the balconies' failure. In its answer, insurer denied coverage for the damage and asserted as defenses the exclusions and limitations in the policy, as well as the objections it raised in its claim-denial letters. Management association filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that: (1) the damage to the balconies qualified under the policy's "collapse" coverage; (2) the defective-workmanship exclusion did not apply to its claim; and (3) the facts do not support insurer's claim that management association knew as early as 2007 that the balconies were structurally impaired.

¶ 13. Insurer filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the damage to the balconies was not covered under the additional coverage provision because nonenumerated causes contributed to the damage: defective construction, faulty design, poor choice of materials, and rot. Moreover, insurer argued that the balconies did not collapse as that term was defined in Gage, 122 Vt. at 248–49, 169 A.2d at 30. Insurer also responded to management association's argument that an exception to the defective-workmanship exclusion applies to the damage.

¶ 14. Management association opposed the cross-motion, arguing that the language of the policy is distinct from the language at issue in Gage. Management association also argued that whether faulty workmanship contributed to the balcony failures was a disputed material fact that precludes granting summary judgment on the grounds that the defective-workmanship exclusion applied. Management association filed a statement of disputed material facts in support of this argument—the statement refers to an affidavit from David Capen, a building contractor, which refutes Barbara Knight's opinion that the balconies were constructed improperly. Furthermore, management association argued that even if insurer could prove defective construction was a contributing factor to the balconies' damage, the defective-workmanship exclusion would not apply because of the provision providing additional coverage for collapse.

¶ 15. The superior court never reached these arguments and did not address the question of disputed facts. The court denied management association's motion and granted insurer's cross-motion, concluding that insurer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court based its decision on the meaning of "collapse," concluding that the damage to the balconies did not fit within the definition from Gage. The decision did not reach the parties' other arguments regarding the defective-workmanship exclusion or the cause of the damage. With regard to management association's contention that the language of its policy with insurer substantially differed from the policy in Gage, the court stated only that "[t]he exclusion of collapse for settling, cracking, shrinkage serves to limit the meaning of collapse, not to expand it." The court did not interpret any other policy language or the remaining language in the phrase "risks of direct physical loss involving collapse." This appeal followed.

¶ 16. In deciding whether summary judgment is proper, we apply the same standard as the superior court. Messier v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 154 Vt. 406, 409, 578 A.2d 98, 99 (1990). If...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT