Sherman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America
| Decision Date | 16 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82CA1311,82CA1311 |
| Parties | Frank L. SHERMAN and Bertha J. Sherman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, A Washington Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Ott, Kirkwood & Cronan, Edward L. Kirkwood, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Hall & Evans, Michael W. Jones, Alan Epstein, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiffs, Frank and Bertha Sherman, appeal from the trial court's entry of judgment denying their claim for insurance benefits under a homeowners' policy issued by defendant. Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in failing to find that their residence, or a part thereof, had "collapsed," within the meaning of their policy. We reverse and remand with directions.
In May 1975 defendant issued plaintiffs a homeowners policy to cover their newly purchased home. The policy insured against direct loss to the home by the following peril:
In early July 1979, when the policy was in force, plaintiffs discovered that two or three layers of brick from the upper portion of a solid brick exterior wall of their home had fallen out and landed on the sidewalk below. Upon further investigation, plaintiffs also discovered that the ridge of the roof had fallen "a few feet" and the roof had sagged. Because of these occurrences, the City and County of Denver required that plaintiffs vacate the house. Plaintiffs moved out in the fall of 1979 and sold the home in April 1980.
A structural engineer who investigated the damage for defendant in July 1979 testified that a sill plate, a timber normally anchored in position on top of a wall to provide a connection between the roof rafters and the wall, had slipped. The engineer indicated that the slippage "essentially took the props out from under the roof," allowed the roof to spread and sag, and caused the upper portions of two brick exterior walls of the house to lean and tip out. He opined that release of the sill plate would explain the abrupt movement of the roof and falling of brick noted by plaintiffs.
The trial court found that because of a combination of inadequate construction and the cutting of a major support beam in the basement, "severe damage" had been done to plaintiffs' property. However, expressing the view that a collapse means "a complete falling down of the building," the court concluded that a collapse "did not occur to the subject property."
In this appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in so defining the term "collapse." They further contend that the court erred in failing to consider whether a "part" of their home had collapsed. We agree with both contentions.
The word "coll...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Forest Lynn Homeowners Ass'n
...352 S.E.2d 612, 615 (1986); United Nuclear Corp. v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 103 N.M. 480, 709 P.2d 649 (1985); Sherman v. Safeco Ins. Co., 670 P.2d 16 (Colo.Ct.App.1983); Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Allen, 362 So.2d 176, 177-78 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. DeJames, ......
-
Doheny West Homeowners' Ass'n v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co.
...of buildings." (See Higgins v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co., supra, 163 Colo. 292, 430 P.2d 479 [Colorado law]; Sherman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, supra, 670 P.2d 16, 17 [Colorado law].) Here, in contrast, the policy covers "loss or damage caused by or resulting from risks of direct physic......
-
Ymca of Pueblo & Ymca Cmty. Campus v. Secura Ins. Cos.
...or breaking down because of a loss of its structural rigidity or by falling into or against itself." Sherman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 670 P.2d 16, 17 (Colo. App. 1983). Further, where (as here) the policy covers collapse of part of a building, the same standard should be applied to discre......
-
Sherman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, Inc., 84CA0010
...and is, therefore, not covered by their insurance policy. We reverse. In a previous appeal in this action, Sherman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, 670 P.2d 16 (Colo.App.1983), we held that the "collapse" of a building need not be total to come within the meaning of that term set forth i......