*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
STEVEN KARAS ET AL. v. LIBERTY

INSURANCE CORPORATION

(SC 20149)

Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D’Auria,

Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, whose home was insured by the defendant insurance company, sought to recover damages from the defendant in an action brought

in the United District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiffs

alleged, inter alia, that the defendant had breached certain provisions

of the applicable homeowners insurance policy by declining coverage

for the purported collapse of their concrete basement walls. The foundation to the plaintiffs’ home had been constructed with defective concrete,

causing it to crack and deteriorate prematurely. Although the plaintiffs’

basement walls did not actually collapse, they suffered from severe

cracking, were bowing inward, and required wood shoring for reinforcement, without which the walls could become unsafe at some point in

the future. The plaintiffs claimed that they were covered under the

policy because the deterioration of the concrete in their basement walls

constituted hidden decay that had so substantially impaired their structural integrity that they were in a state of collapse, as that term had

been defined in Beach v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. (205 Conn.

246), in which this court concluded that that the term ‘‘collapse’’ in a

homeowners insurance policy, when otherwise undefined, is sufficiently

ambiguous to include coverage for any substantial impairment of the

structural integrity of an insured’s home. The defendant filed a motion

for summary judgment, asserting, inter alia, that the plaintiffs’ loss was

excluded under the provisions of the policy that expressly precluded

coverage for the collapse of a building subject to certain exceptions

that were inapplicable and that, alternatively, the plaintiffs’ claim fell

within an express exclusion in the policy for loss caused by the collapse

of the home’s foundation, of which, according to the defendant, the

home’s basement walls were a part. The District Court denied the defendant’s motion as to the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim, and, thereafter, that court certified a question of law to this court concerning what

constitutes substantial impairment of structural integrity for purposes of

applying the collapse provision of the plaintiffs’ homeowners’ insurance

policy. Subsequently, this court issued an order reformulating the certified question to include additional questions. Held:

1. The substantial impairment of structural integrity standard, as set forth

in Beach, was applicable to the collapse provision of the plaintiffs’

homeowners insurance policy: the plaintiffs’ policy having failed to

define the term ‘‘collapse’’ or to limit collapse coverage in words that

unmistakably connoted an actual collapse, there was ambiguity pertaining to that term, and a policy’s use of the term ‘‘collapse,’’ when not

clearly defined, is fairly susceptible of being interpreted as including

settling or cracking that results in the substantial impairment of the

home’s structural integrity; moreover, although the collapse provision

in the plaintiffs’ policy purported to exclude settling and cracking from

its purview, it did not express a clear intent to exclude coverage for a

collapse that ensues from what initially begins as unexceptional settling

or cracking and what later develops into a far more serious structural

infirmity culminating in an actual or imminent collapse.

2. This court concluded that, to satisfy the substantial impairment of structural integrity standard, an insured whose home has not actually collapsed must present evidence demonstrating that the home nevertheless

is in imminent danger of falling down or caving in, that is, in imminent

danger of an actual collapse; such a conclusion was implicit in this

court’s holding in Beach, as the cases on which the court in Beach relied

for the proposition that the term ‘‘collapse’’ could encompass something

short of an actual collapse each involved buildings, or parts thereof,

that, like the house in Beach, were in imminent danger of collapsing or

that otherwise had been declared unsafe for their intended purposes;
moreover, the substantial impairment standard is not satisfied merely

by evidence that a building will eventually fall down, particularly when

it is not in immediate danger of collapsing and it likely can be safely

occupied for years, if not decades, into the future.

3. The coverage exclusion in the plaintiffs’ homeowners insurance policy

for the collapse of the ‘‘foundation’’ unambiguously includes the basement walls of the plaintiffs’ home: basement walls invariably are considered part of a building’s foundation in state and local building codes,

laypersons with no special knowledge of building codes or the intricacies

of home construction generally understand that the concrete basement

walls of a home are part of its foundation, definitions of the term

‘‘foundation’’ in dictionaries circulating at or around the time the applicable homeowners insurance policy was issued by the defendant to the

plaintiffs support the view that concrete basement walls, and not just

the footings beneath them, comprise a home’s foundation, and various

governmental entities consistently have referred, in public pronouncements concerning Connecticut’s crumbling foundations problem, to the

affected basement walls as crumbling foundations; moreover, this court,

for more than one century, has used the term ‘‘foundation wall’’ when

referring to the basement wall of a building, a reference to the term

‘‘foundation’’ in an exclusion in the plaintiffs’ homeowners insurance

policy led to the conclusion that that term must mean more than just

a footing, and this court rejected the reasoning of those federal and

state courts that have concluded that the term ‘‘foundation’’ reasonably

may be understood to refer solely to the footings beneath the basement walls.

Argued December 18, 2018—officially released November 12, 2019*

Procedural History

Action to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of

an insurance contract, and for other relief, brought to

the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, where the court, Underhill, J., granted in part

the defendant’s motion for summary judgment; thereafter, the court, Underhill, J., certified a question of law

to this court concerning the application of Connecticut

insurance law; subsequently, this court reformulated

the certified question.

Michael D. Parker, pro hac vice, with whom was

Jeffrey R. Lindequist, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Robert A. Kole, pro hac vice, with whom was Kieran

W. Leary, for the appellee (defendant).

Paul R. Doyle and Kevin P. Walsh filed a brief for

Connecticut Senator Paul R. Doyle as amicus curiae.

Wystan M. Ackerman filed a brief for the American

Insurance Association et al. as amici curiae.

Thomas O. Farrish filed a brief for the Insurance

Association of Connecticut as amicus curiae.

Ryan M. Suerth, Marilyn B. Fagelson, Proloy K. Das

and Sarah Gruber filed a brief for United Policyholders

as amicus curiae.
Opinion

PALMER, J. In Beach v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance

Co., 205 Conn. 246, 532 A.2d 1297 (1987), this court

determined that the term ‘‘collapse’’ in a homeowners

insurance policy, when otherwise undefined, ‘‘is sufficiently ambiguous to include coverage for any substantial impairment of the structural integrity’’ of the

insureds’ home. Id., 252. In the present case, which

comes to us on certification from the United States

District Court for the District of Connecticut; see General Statutes § 51-199b (d);1 we consider whether that

definition pertains to the collapse provisions of the

homeowners insurance policy issued by the defendant,

Liberty Insurance Corporation, to the plaintiffs, Steven

Karas and Gail Karas, who claim coverage for the cracking and crumbling of their concrete basement walls,

and, if the definition set forth in Beach does apply,

what degree of deterioration constitutes a ‘‘substantial

impairment of the structural integrity’’ of those walls

sufficient to trigger coverage. Beach v. Middlesex

Mutual Assurance Co., supra, 252. We also consider

whether, under Connecticut law, the coverage exclusion in the plaintiffs’ policy for the collapse of the

home’s ‘‘foundation’’ unambiguously includes the basement walls of the home. We conclude, first, that the

Beach standard applies to the plaintiffs’ policy, second,

that the ‘‘substantial impairment of structural integrity’’

standard requires proof that the home is in imminent

danger of falling down, and, third, that the term ‘‘foundation’’ unambiguously encompasses the home’s basement walls.2

The record certified by the District Court contains

the following undisputed facts and procedural history.

The plaintiffs, who purchased their home in the town

of Vernon in 2010,3 are among hundreds of homeowners

in northeastern Connecticut whose foundations were

constructed using defective concrete manufactured by

J.J. Mottes Concrete Company (Mottes). According to

a study commissioned by the state of Connecticut and

conducted by the Department of Consumer Protection,

the stone aggregate used in Mottes concrete between

1983 and 2010 contained significant amounts of pyrrhotite, a ferrous mineral that oxidizes in the presence of

water and oxygen to form expansive secondary minerals that crack and destabilize the concrete, resulting in

its premature deterioration. See Department of Consumer Protection, State of Connecticut, Report on Deteriorating Concrete in Residential Foundations (December

30, 2016) pp. 1, 7–9 (Report on Deteriorating Concrete in

Residential Foundations), available at http://crcog.org/

wp-content/uploads/2016/12/report_on_deteriorating_

concrete_in_residential_foundations.pdf (last visited

November 6, 2019).

In October, 2013, the plaintiffs discovered that their

basement walls were cracking and crumbling in the
manner typical of Mottes concrete. On November 15,

2013, they submitted a claim to the defendant, which

it denied. Thereafter, the plaintiffs commenced an

action in the United States District Court for the District

of Connecticut, alleging that the defendant had

breached the collapse provisions of the policy by declining to compensate them for the purported collapse of

their basement walls. The plaintiffs also alleged a

breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing

and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance

Practices Act (CUIPA), General Statutes § 38a-815 et

seq., and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act

(CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.

In support of their claims, the plaintiffs relied on the

following provisions in their homeowners insurance

policy: ‘‘SECTION I—PERILS INSURED AGAINST . . .

We insure against risk of direct loss to property

described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a

physical loss to property. We do not insure, however, for

loss . . . [i]nvolving collapse, other than as provided

in Additional Coverage 8 . . . .’’ Additional Coverage

8, in turn, provides in relevant part: ‘‘Collapse. We insure

for direct physical loss to covered property involving

collapse of a building or any part of a building caused

only by one or more of the following: a. [Certain perils

identified elsewhere in the policy, including fire, lightning, windstorm, hail, explosion, riot, civil commotion

and volcanic eruption]; b. [h]idden decay; c. [h]idden

insect or vermin damage; d. [w]eight of contents, equipment, animals or people; e. [w]eight of rain which collects on a roof; or f. [u]se of defective material or methods in construction, remodeling or renovation if the

collapse occurs during the course of the construction,

remodeling or renovation. Loss to an awning, fence,

patio, pavement, swimming pool, underground pipe,

flue, drain, cesspool, septic tank, foundation, retaining

wall, bulkhead, pier, wharf or dock is not included

under items b., c., d., e., and f. unless the loss is a direct

result of the collapse of a building. Collapse does not

include settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion.’’ According to the plaintiffs, they are entitled to

payment under these policy provisions because the

deterioration of the concrete within their basement

walls constitutes hidden decay that has so substantially

impaired the walls’ structural integrity that they are in

a state of collapse as we defined that term in Beach.

In connection with the present action, the plaintiffs

retained the services of David Grandpre, a structural

engineer who has been retained in more than sixty cases

involving Mottes concrete. In his deposition, Grandpre

testified that the plaintiffs’ foundation had ‘‘the most

severe cracking problem’’ of any of the Mottes foundations he had inspected and that the basement walls were

bowing inward approximately two inches. Grandpre

opined that the chemical reaction occurring within the

concrete cannot be arrested and that the only remedy
is to replace the basement walls. At Grandpre’s recommendation, the plaintiffs installed wood shoring to reinforce the walls. Grandpre testified that, without the

shoring, the home ‘‘might become unsafe at some time

in the near future.’’ When pressed on when the basement walls might become unsafe, Grandpre responded

that he did not think he could ‘‘say within a reasonable

degree of engineering certainty’’ that the walls will fall

down ‘‘within the next 100 years,’’ although he thought

that it is likely that they will do so within that time

frame ‘‘based on the fact that portions of the wall are

already crumbling and falling to the floor . . . .’’

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment,

asserting, inter alia, that the loss claimed by the plaintiffs is excluded under the provisions of the policy that

expressly preclude coverage for the collapse of a building unless it results from one of several specified causes,

none of which, the defendant argued, was applicable

to the plaintiffs’ claim. The defendant further argued

that the plaintiffs’ reliance on our definition of the term

‘‘collapse’’ in Beach was misplaced because the collapse

provisions of their policy and the parallel provisions

of the policy at issue in Beach, although similar, are

sufficiently different to render Beach inapplicable to

the present case. The defendant also maintained that,

under Beach, a policyholder cannot establish a substantial impairment of a building’s structural integrity without proof that the building is in imminent danger of

falling down, and, because the basement walls of the

plaintiffs’ home are in no such danger, the plaintiffs

cannot prevail on their claim, even if the Beach standard

is applicable. Finally, the defendant asserted that the

plaintiffs’ claim fell within an express exclusion in the

policy for loss caused by collapse of the home’s foundation because, according to the defendant, it cannot reasonably be disputed that a home’s basement walls are

part of the foundation.

The District Court denied the defendant’s motion for

summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim but granted it as to the plaintiffs’ remaining

claims.4 Thereafter, the defendant requested that the

District Court seek this court’s guidance by way of

certification with respect to the following three

questions:

‘‘1. Is ‘substantial impairment of structural integrity’

the applicable standard for ‘collapse’ under the [plaintiffs’ homeowners insurance policy] provision at issue?

‘‘2. If the answer to question one is yes, then what

constitutes ‘substantial impairment of structural integrity’ for purposes of applying the ‘collapse’ provision

of [the plaintiffs’ homeowners] insurance policy?

‘‘3. Under Connecticut law, [does] the [term] ‘foundation’ . . . in a [homeowners] insurance policy unambiguously include basement walls? If not, and if [that
term is] ambiguous, should extrinsic evidence as to the

meaning of ‘foundation’ . . . be considered?’’5 Karas

v. Liberty Ins. Corp., Docket No. 3:13-cv-01836 (SRU),

2018 WL 2002480, *4 (D. Conn. April 30, 2018).

The District Court granted the defendant’s certification request only as to the second question; id., *5;

concluding that guidance as to the meaning of ‘‘substantial impairment of structural integrity’’ was warranted

because ‘‘[n]o Connecticut appellate decision has

squarely applied Beach and arrived at a definition of

‘substantial impairment of structural integrity’ ’’; id., *3;

and because the issue of insurance claims arising from

crumbling basement walls—an extremely distressing

and costly problem that is estimated to have affected

as many as 34,000 homes6—is ‘‘plainly of great importance to the [s]tate . . . and implicates broad questions of Connecticut public policy.’’ (Citations omitted;

internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., *3 and n.4. The

District Court, however, declined to certify the first and

third questions, concluding, with respect to the first

question, that, because the collapse provisions of the

policy in the present case do not define the term ‘‘collapse’’ and otherwise are virtually identical to the relevant provisions of the policy at issue in Beach, the

substantial impairment standard applies to the policy

in this case no less than it applied to the policy in Beach.

Id., *4 and n.5. As to the third question, the District

Court determined that certification was unnecessary

because Connecticut federal and state trial courts uniformly have rejected insurers’ claims that the term

‘‘foundation’’ unambiguously includes basement walls;

id., *4; those courts have concluded, rather, that the

term also reasonably can be understood to refer solely

to the concrete footing on which the basement walls

rest but does not include the walls themselves.7

Following the District Court’s order certifying the

second question only, the defendant, as authorized by

Practice Book § 82-4, filed an objection to that certification order. In particular, the defendant requested that

this court answer, in addition to the question certified

by the District Court, the two questions that the District

Court had declined to certify. In support of this request,

the defendant asserted, with respect to the first question, that the District Court incorrectly concluded that

the collapse provision in the plaintiffs’ policy is materially identical to the collapse provision at issue in Beach.

With respect to the third question, the defendant maintained that the District Court’s reliance on Connecticut

Superior Court and United States District Court cases

in declining to certify that question was misplaced

because those cases were wrongly decided and are

contrary to the weight of authority from other jurisdictions holding that a building’s foundation includes its

basement walls. The defendant also argued that,

because no Connecticut appellate decision has

addressed the issue of whether the term ‘‘foundation’’
in a homeowners insurance policy unambiguously

encompasses basement walls, the defendant ‘‘and likely

other insurers . . . will not abandon their argument

[that it does]’’ such that ‘‘a definitive resolution of the

issue [by the Connecticut Supreme Court] that would

apply across all cases’’ would have the salutary effect

of saving the parties in those future cases considerable

time and resources that otherwise would be spent litigating that issue.

In light of the significant number of cases in which

any one or more of the three questions are likely to arise,

we deem it prudent to grant the defendant’s request

and, accordingly, to issue an order reformulating the

District Court’s certified question to include the

remaining two questions.8 Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.

I

We begin with the issue of whether we should apply

Beach’s substantial impairment standard to the collapse

provision of the plaintiffs’ homeowners insurance policy. In support of its claim that we should not, the

defendant contends that the plaintiffs’ policy defines

the term ‘‘collapse’’ with sufficient clarity and, therefore, that the Beach standard, which pertains only to

policies that do not contain such a definition of the

term, is not applicable. The defendant further maintains

that, under this court’s reasoning in Beach, the collapse

language used in the plaintiffs’ policy operates to limit

collapse coverage to a catastrophic event characterized

by a sudden and complete falling in of a structure, an

event that concededly has not occurred in the present case.

Before considering the applicability of Beach to the

present circumstances, we first set forth certain well

established principles applicable to the interpretation

of a policy of insurance. ‘‘An insurance policy is to be

interpreted by the same general rules that govern the

construction of any written contract . . . . In accordance with those principles, [t]he determinative question is the intent of the parties, that is, what coverage

the . . . [insured] expected to receive and what the

[insurer] was to provide, as disclosed by the provisions

of the policy. . . . If the terms of the policy are clear

and unambiguous, then the language, from which the

intention of the parties is to be deduced, must be

accorded its natural and ordinary meaning. . . . Under

those circumstances, the policy is to be given effect

according to its terms. . . . When interpreting [an

insurance policy], we must look at the contract as a

whole, consider all relevant portions together and, if

possible, give operative effect to every provision in

order to reach a reasonable overall result. . . .

‘‘In determining whether the terms of an insurance

policy are clear and unambiguous, [a] court will not
torture words to import ambiguity [when] the ordinary

meaning leaves no room for ambiguity . . . . Similarly,

any ambiguity in a contract must emanate from the

language used in the contract rather than from one

party’s subjective perception of the terms. . . . As with

contracts generally, a provision in an insurance policy

is ambiguous when it is reasonably susceptible to more

than one reading. . . . Under those circumstances, any

ambiguity in the terms of an insurance policy must be

construed in favor of the insured because the insurance

company drafted the policy.’’ (Internal quotation marks

omitted.) Lexington Ins. Co. v. Lexington Healthcare

Group, Inc., 311 Conn. 29, 37–38, 84 A.3d 1167 (2014).

Finally, in construing an insurance contract, ‘‘[c]ontext

is often central to the way in which policy language is

applied; the same language may be found both ambiguous and unambiguous as applied to different facts. . . .

Language in an insurance contract, therefore, must be

construed in the circumstances of [a particular] case,

and cannot be found to be ambiguous [or unambiguous]

in the abstract.’’ (Citation omitted; emphasis omitted;

internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 41–42. Mindful

of these guiding principles, we turn to our decision

in Beach.

The issue in that case was whether a house that was

still standing but ‘‘in imminent danger of falling over’’

due to cracks in the foundation; (internal quotation

marks omitted) Beach v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance

Co., supra, 205 Conn. 249; could be deemed to be in a

state of collapse for purposes of applying a homeowners

insurance policy that excluded losses resulting from

‘‘settling, cracking, shrinkage, bulging or expansion’’ of,

among other things, pavement, foundations, walls and

floors, ‘‘unless . . . collapse of a building . . . not

otherwise excluded ensues,’’ in which case the loss

resulting from the collapse was covered. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 250. The plaintiffs, Carter L.

Beach and Mary Lawton Beach, brought an action

against their insurer, the defendant Middlesex Mutual

Assurance Company (Middlesex), after Middlesex

denied their claim for the alleged collapse of their

house. Id., 247. At trial, which was conducted before a

trial referee, the evidence established that the Beaches

had discovered a crack in one of their basement walls

and notified Middlesex of the problem. Id. Middlesex

sent a claims adjuster to their house to inspect the

damage, and, while conducting the inspection, the

adjuster noticed that the house had actually separated

from the top of the foundation. Id. Nevertheless, Middlesex denied the Beaches’ claim on the ground that the

damage to their foundation was the result of settling,

which the insurance policy expressly excluded. Id., 248.

The crack continued to widen and, within three

months, grew to a width of approximately nine inches.

Id. As we explained, the trial referee further found that

the ‘‘wooden support beams on top of the foundation
wall had pulled apart and the concrete floor of the patio

adjacent to the north side of the house had cracked

and fallen in. Concerned over this deteriorating state

of affairs, Carter Beach requested a site visit by [Middlesex’] engineer . . . but was told that coverage would

still be denied because no ‘collapse’ of his home had

occurred.’’ Id. Thereafter, the Beaches hired a contractor to make all necessary repairs to their home; by then,

‘‘the foundation wall had tipped over into the basement

from the top and was no longer supporting the house.’’

Id. ‘‘Because the house never actually caved in [however], the [Beaches] continued in occupancy during the

period in which [the contractor] undertook the needed

structural repairs. Despite the nonoccurrence of a sudden catastrophe, the trial referee heard and found credible the testimony of a number of witnesses that the

house would have caved in had the plaintiffs not acted

to repair the damage. The trial referee expressly found

that, ‘[g]iven the state of the structure, eventually the

house would have fallen into the cellar.’ The referee

concluded that ‘the foundation in the [Beaches’] house

cracked . . . that the foundation failed structurally,

and that the function of the foundation, both as a support structure for the house and a retaining wall, had

become materially impaired, constituting collapse.’ ’’

Id., 248–49.

The trial court accepted the report of the trial referee,

adopted the trial referee’s recommendations, and rendered judgment in accordance with the report. See id.,

249. In doing so, the trial court explained that it had

found the trial referee’s report ‘‘ ‘to be sound, comprehensive and logical both factually and legally, including

the [trial referee’s] recommendations . . . [1] that a

‘‘collapse’’ in the sense of a material impairment of the

basic structure of a building was included within the

coverage of the insurance policy involved in [the] action

. . . and [2] that the structure in question was in imminent danger of falling over . . . .’ ’’ Id.

On appeal to this court, Middlesex claimed that the

trial court had incorrectly determined that a ‘‘collapse’’

is anything other than a catastrophic event involving a

sudden and complete falling down or caving in of a

building. See id., 250. Specifically, Middlesex argued

that ‘‘the standard dictionary definition of ‘collapse’ on

its face unambiguously connotes a sudden and complete catastrophe’’; id.; characterized by a ‘‘falling in’’

or ‘‘loss of shape . . . .’’ Id., 252. Because the Beaches’

house was indisputably still standing, Middlesex maintained that the house reasonably could not be deemed

to have collapsed for purposes of triggering the policy’s

collapse provision. See id., 250–51. We disagreed,

rejecting Middlesex’ contention that the standard dictionary definition of ‘‘collapse’’ supported only one

meaning, namely, a sudden and complete falling down

or caving in. Id. We concluded that, ‘‘[a]lthough ‘collapse’ encompasses a catastrophic breakdown, as [Mid-
dlesex] argue[d]’’; id., 251; it also includes, according

to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, ‘‘a

breakdown in vital energy, strength, or stamina . . . .’’

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 250. Accordingly, and in light of the principle that ambiguous language in an insurance contract is afforded the meaning

most favorable to the insured; id.; we upheld the trial

court’s determination that Middlesex was liable to the

Beaches under the policy. Id., 253.

In reaching our determination, we also rejected Middlesex’ assertion that its interpretation was ‘‘the only

one consistent with the terms of the clause excluding

liability for loss by ‘settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging

or expansion.’ ’’ Id., 251. Specifically, Middlesex argued

that this exclusionary clause must be read to ‘‘modify

and inform the meaning of ‘collapse’ and necessarily

narrow the purview of ‘collapse’ to [a] casualty of a

sudden and cataclysmic nature.’’ Id. Although we agreed

that Middlesex’ interpretation was ‘‘a plausible one’’; id.;

we concluded that there was another, equally plausible

reading, namely, that the policy ‘‘exclude[s] loss related

to ‘settling, cracking, shrinkage, bulging or expansion,’

only [as] long as ‘collapse’ does not ensue. Nowhere

does the policy express a clear, unambiguous intent to

exclude coverage for a catastrophe that subsequently

develops out of a loss that appeared, at its inception,

to fall within the rubric of ‘settling, cracking, shrinkage,

bulging or expansion.’ On the contrary, the disputed

policy provision covers a loss for ‘collapse’ [that], not

otherwise being excluded, ‘ensues.’ To ‘ensue’ means

‘to follow as a chance, likely, or necessary consequence

. . . . [Webster’s] Third New International Dictionary

[(1961) p. 756]. By its reference to a ‘collapse’ that

‘ensues,’ the policy . . . can reasonably be understood

to have contemplated coverage for a ‘collapse’ that follows consequentially from excluded activity. Read in

its entirety, therefore, the defendant’s policy does not

unambiguously limit its liability to a ‘collapse’ of a sudden and catastrophic nature.’’ Beach v. Middlesex

Mutual Assurance Co., supra, 205 Conn. 251–52. We

further observed that, ‘‘[a]lthough the judicial decisions

elsewhere are divided, the more persuasive authorities

hold that the term ‘collapse’ is sufficiently ambiguous

to include coverage for any substantial impairment of

the structural integrity of a building. . . . The cases to

the contrary, which hold that ‘collapse’ unmistakably

connotes a sudden falling in, loss of shape, or flattening

into a mass of rubble, have come to be in the distinct

minority.’’ (Citations omitted.) Id., 252.

The defendant in the present case asserts that the

language of the plaintiffs’ homeowners insurance policy

is materially different from the language at issue in

Beach because the plaintiffs’ policy makes clear that a

sudden falling or caving in is required to trigger collapse

coverage. More specifically, the defendant argues that

‘‘[t]he key difference is that the [policy at issue in]
Beach . . . provide[d] that an excluded cause of loss

(cracking) could potentially progress to the point where

it becomes an ‘ensu[ing]’ covered ‘collapse,’ while the

[policy in the present case] makes clear that a loss

consisting of ‘settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or

expansion’ is not a collapse under any circumstances.’’

(Emphasis in original.) Although the language of the

collapse provisions of the plaintiffs’ policy is somewhat

different from that of the collapse provisions in the

Beaches’ policy, we disagree that this difference is sufficient to remove the ambiguity identified in Beach pertaining to the term ‘‘collapse.’’ As we previously

explained, the plaintiffs’ policy provides in relevant

part: ‘‘We insure for direct physical loss to covered

property involving collapse of a building or any part of

a building caused only by one or more of the following

. . . . Collapse does not include settling, cracking,

shrinking, bulging or expansion.’’ As in Beach, the term

‘‘collapse’’ is not further defined in the plaintiff’s policy,

and, although the collapse provision purports to

exclude settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging and

expansion from its purview, it does not express a clear

intent to exclude coverage for a collapse that ensues

from what initially began as unexceptional, run-of-themill settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion

but what later developed into a far more serious structural infirmity culminating in an actual or imminent

collapse. We therefore agree with those courts that have

concluded that a policy’s use of the term ‘‘collapse,’’

when not clearly defined, is ‘‘fairly susceptible to being

interpreted as not including mere settling or cracking,

but including settling or cracking that results in substantial impairment of a home’s structural integrity . . . .’’

(Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) American Concept Ins. Co. v. Jones, 935 F. Supp.

1220, 1227 (D. Utah 1996); see id. (‘‘[i]t appears that the

clear modern trend is to hold that collapse coverage

provisions . . . [that] define collapse as not including

cracking and settling . . . provide coverage if there is

substantial impairment of the structural integrity of the

building or any part of a building’’); see also, e.g., Agosti

v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 279 F. Supp. 3d

370, 376 (D. Conn. 2017) (‘‘the term collapse standing

alone, is sufficiently ambiguous to include coverage for

any substantial impairment of the structural integrity

of a building’’ (internal quotation marks omitted));

Schray v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 402 F. Supp. 2d

1212, 1218 (D. Or. 2005) (‘‘the modern trend [is to]

apply the collapse coverage if any part of the building

sustained substantial impairment to its structural

integrity’’).

Indeed, if the defendant had wished to limit its collapse coverage to a sudden and catastrophic event, it

very easily could have done so in plain and unambiguous terms. As one court aptly observed in addressing

this issue, ‘‘[t]he controversy surrounding the definition
of ‘collapse’ began prior to 1960. See Government

Employees [Ins.] Co. v. DeJames, 256 Md. 717, [723–24,

261 A.2d 747] (1970) (citing cases [decided] as early as

1958). Particularly with this much warning, the insurer

is capable of unambiguously limiting collapse coverage

[to a building reduced to a flattened form or rubble,

namely, an actual collapse] if it wishes to do so. See

Rosen v. State Farm General [Ins.] Co., 30 Cal. 4th 1070,

[1073, 1076, 70 P.3d 351, 135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 361] (2003)

(no coverage for imminent collapse of deck when policy

provided ‘[w]e insure only for direct physical loss to

covered property involving the sudden, entire collapse

of a building or any part of a building . . . [and that]

[c]ollapse means actually fallen down or fallen into

pieces.’) . . . .’’ (Emphasis in original.) Schray v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., supra, 402 F. Supp. 2d 1218; see

also Liston-Smith v. CSAA Fire & Casualty Ins. Co.,

287 F. Supp. 3d 153, 157, 159 (D. Conn. 2017) (additional

coverage for collapse did not cover cracks in foundation

under homeowners insurance policy that defined ‘‘collapse’’ as ‘‘an abrupt falling down or caving in of a

building or any part of a building with the result that

the building or part of the building cannot be occupied

for its current intended purpose’’). Because the plaintiffs’ policy does not limit collapse coverage in words

that unmistakably connote an actual collapse, whereby

a building is reduced to a flattened form or rubble, we

agree with the plaintiffs that the substantial impairment

standard applies to the present case.

The defendant nonetheless contends that we should

interpret the plaintiffs’ policy as requiring such a catastrophic event in light of our statement in Beach that,

if the insurer in that case had ‘‘wished to rely on a single

facial meaning of the term ‘collapse’ as used in its policy,

it had the opportunity expressly to define the term to

provide for the limited usage it . . . claims to have

intended. See, e.g., Nida v. State Farm Fire & Casualty

Co., 454 So. 2d 328, 334 [(La. App.), cert. denied, 458

So. 2d 486 (La. 1984)].’’ Beach v. Middlesex Mutual

Assurance Co., supra, 205 Conn. 251. The defendant

argues that, because the collapse provision of the policy

in Nida is identically worded to the collapse provision

of the policy in the present case and this court cited

Nida for the proposition that Middlesex could have

expressly defined the term ‘‘collapse’’ to require a sudden and catastrophic event, we are obliged to conclude

that the substantial impairment standard that we

adopted in Beach does not apply in the present case.

Although concededly our reference to Nida in Beach

was not a model of clarity, the defendant reads too

much into our citation to that case. In referring to Nida

in Beach, we intended only to underscore the point

that insurers can define ‘‘collapse’’ in terms that would

unambiguously exclude losses resulting from settling,

cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion, and the specific page to which we cited in Nida does no more than
that. See Nida v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., supra,

454 So. 2d 334 (explaining that language in question

was ‘‘neither ambiguous nor unclear’’). We were not

required in Beach to decide, and did not purport to

decide, whether we agreed with the court in Nida that

the policy language at issue in that case unambiguously

limited collapse coverage in the manner determined by

that court. That question being squarely before us now,

we conclude, for the foregoing reasons, that it does not.

II

Having determined that the substantial impairment

of structural integrity standard applies to the plaintiffs’

homeowners insurance policy, we now must clarify

what constitutes such an impairment. Urging us to

adopt a temporal requirement, the defendant argues

that, if the term ‘‘collapse’’ is to have any real meaning,

substantial impairment of structural integrity must

denote that the building, though not yet in pieces on

the ground, is in imminent danger of falling down.

According to the defendant, collapse cannot mean ‘‘the

[mere] gradual deterioration of a concrete foundation

spanning not days, weeks, months or even years but

decades, with no end (or actual ‘collapse’) in sight,’’

because no one would construe the term ‘‘collapse’’ to

describe such a state of affairs. In other words, the

defendant insists, ‘‘[a] gradual process that may (or

may not) result in a structure falling down at some

indeterminate date decades from now is not a ‘collapse’

today . . . .’’ The defendant further observes that

courts in other jurisdictions that have adopted the substantial impairment standard invariably require that the

building be in imminent danger of falling down, thereby

rendering it unsafe for occupancy, before collapse coverage is triggered. Finally, the defendant asserts that

our decision in Beach quite clearly contemplates the

necessity of an imminence requirement.

The plaintiffs, for their part, claim that such a requirement is not only unwarranted, but contrary to the reasoning of Beach. Although acknowledging that ‘‘ ‘[t]he

facts of Beach reflect the existence of an immediate

danger of a complete falling in of the building,’’ the

plaintiffs, relying primarily on Dino v. Safeco Ins. Co.

of America, Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland,

Docket No. CV-16-6010428-S (June 28, 2018) (66 Conn.

L. Rptr. 652), and Roberts v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins.

Co., 264 F. Supp. 3d 394 (D. Conn. 2017), nevertheless

contend that ‘‘ ‘the immediacy of that danger does not

appear to drive the court’s reasoning’ ’’ in Beach. The

plaintiffs further assert that the imposition of an imminence requirement would place Connecticut homeowners in the untenable position of having ‘‘to wait until

the house [is] about to fall in’’ before submitting a claim,

even though their contractual and common-law duty to

mitigate damages would be triggered as soon as they

noticed cracks in their foundation, which, in cases
involving Mottes concrete, typically happens years

before the house is in any imminent or serious danger

of falling down. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs

argue, homeowners would ‘‘be denied coverage in every

case of gradual, but inevitable, failure of the structure’’

of their home, which, they maintain, would render collapse coverage under their homeowners insurance policies ‘‘completely illusory.’’ We agree with the defendant.

As the District Court observed in certifying this question, since our adoption of the substantial impairment

standard in Beach thirty-two years ago, this court has

had no occasion to apply or otherwise consider the

standard in any other case. Most unfortunate, however,

due to the crisis involving crumbling basement walls

that has confronted homeowners in Connecticut beginning in the early 2000s, both federal and state trial courts

in Connecticut have been called on to do so numerous

times. As several of those courts have observed, there is

a split among them as to what constitutes a substantial

impairment of structural integrity. Whereas some have

held that the standard requires proof that ‘‘a building

would have caved in had the plaintiffs not acted to

repair the damage’’; (internal quotation marks omitted)

Roberts v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., supra, 264 F.

Supp. 3d 407; cf. Dino v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America,

supra, 66 Conn. L. Rptr. 665–66; others have concluded

that, if the plaintiff adduces the opinion of an expert

that the structural integrity of a foundation is materially

impaired, it is up to the jury, on the basis of that expert

testimony, to decide whether that impairment is substantial enough to satisfy the standard. See, e.g., Jang

v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Docket No. 3:15 CV

1243 (JBA), 2018 WL 3195148, *2 (D. Conn. February

22, 2018); see also Metsack v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins.

Co., Docket No. 3:14-CV-01150 (VLB), 2017 WL 706599,

*6 (D. Conn. February 21, 2017) (plaintiffs presented

evidence that cracks in basement walls comprised

structural integrity of home, and, therefore, there was

material dispute as to whether damage constituted collapse within meaning of homeowners insurance policy).

Courts embracing the latter view read Beach as placing

no particular definitional constraint on what constitutes

a substantial impairment of a building’s structural integrity, such that an impairment generally will be sufficient

to meet the standard if a jury finds that it is.

Even those courts that have adopted the former view

and require proof that a building would have caved

in at some point in time if the homeowner had not

undertaken the necessary repairs have not required a

showing by the homeowner that the structure was in

imminent danger of falling down. See, e.g., Roberts v.

Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., supra, 264 F. Supp. 3d

408 (‘‘[Beach] indicated [that] it was sufficient that eventually the house would have fallen into the cellar’’

(emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted)). In declining to read Beach as imposing an immi-
nence requirement, one court noted that the Beaches

‘‘continued in occupancy during . . . repairs’’ and that

‘‘the house never actually caved in’’; (internal quotation

marks omitted) id.; facts that, the court observed, supported the conclusion that a substantial impairment of

a building’s structural integrity need not be ‘‘so severe

as to materially impair [the] building’s ability to remain

upright.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. For

courts that embrace this view, requiring proof that the

building will eventually fall in, even if that event may be

decades away, ‘‘achieves an appropriate middle ground

that avoids either eviscerating catastrophic coverage

of collapse . . . or effectively nullifying the faulty

workmanship and settling exclusions.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 407. It also ensures that

‘‘[i]nsurers will not escape paying for catastrophic collapse[s] simply because insureds mitigate their losses

by conducting emergency repairs, but, at the same time,

they also will not . . . [become] liable for run-of-themill basement wall leakage and shifting problems.’’

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. We conclude

that neither of these two views of the substantial impairment standard represents an accurate characterization

of our holding in Beach.

As we explained, the issue we addressed in Beach

was whether a house that was still standing but ‘‘in

imminent danger of falling over’’; Beach v. Middlesex

Mutual Assurance Co., supra, 205 Conn. 249; could

nevertheless be deemed to be in a state of collapse

for purposes of a homeowners insurance policy that

excluded losses resulting from ‘‘settling, cracking,

shrinkage, bulging or expansion’’ unless a ‘‘collapse of

a building . . . not otherwise excluded ensue[d]

. . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 250.

Because of the factual context in which the Beaches’

claim of coverage was made, we had no reason to consider whether a building that was not in any imminent

danger of falling over also could be found to be in a

state of collapse under the same insurance policy. In

light of the facts of Beach, and the cases we relied on

in adopting the substantial impairment standard as an

alternative to the catastrophic event standard advocated by Middlesex, we believe the answer to that question—that the building must be in imminent danger of

falling down—was implicit in our holding in Beach.

As the defendant notes, the cases we cited in Beach

for the proposition that the term ‘‘collapse’’ could

encompass something short of a catastrophic event

each involved buildings, or parts of buildings, that, like

the house in Beach, were in imminent danger of falling

over or otherwise had been declared unsafe for their

intended purposes, in most cases both. See, e.g., Auto

Owners Ins. Co. v. Allen, 362 So. 2d 176, 176–77 (Fla.

App. 1978) (‘‘[The homeowners’ expert] stated that one

exterior wall of the building had collapsed and a second

was leaning out from the interior wall a significant
distance. It was his opinion that the roof was kept from

immediately falling only by resting on the interior walls

and that the function of the wall and building . . .

including the function of supporting the superstructure

. . . was impaired and the total building . . . was in

imminent danger of falling further.’’ (Internal quotation

marks omitted.)); Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v.

Tomlin, 181 Ga. App. 413, 414, 352 S.E.2d 612 (1986)

(‘‘[t]he exterior brick walls of the house have cracked

and pulled away from the structure,’’ requiring plaintiffs

to install ‘‘wood supports against the walls to prevent

them from falling’’ (internal quotation marks omitted));

Rogers v. Maryland Casualty Co., 252 Iowa 1096, 1099,

109 N.W.2d 435 (1961) (‘‘Of course [the] walls had not

completely fallen down. [But] [s]izable chunks of stucco

had fallen from the foundation, and the entire north

basement wall was in danger of falling in. The house was

seriously damaged from cracks, bulging and buckling

of the basement walls. The jury could find its basic

structure was materially impaired and [that] it was dangerous to occupy it.’’); Government Employees Ins. Co.

v. DeJames, supra, 256 Md. 721 (‘‘[w]hen asked to characterize the condition of the wall, [the expert witness

stated that] it had failed, explaining that this was an

engineering term meaning its condition was beyond any

reasonable use, that it could no longer usefully sustain

a load, that [i]t certainly was unsafe, that [i]t would not

be safe if the wooden framework supporting the first

floor joists and the shoring were removed’’ (internal

quotation marks omitted)); Vormelker v. Oleksinski, 40

Mich. App. 618, 622, 199 N.W.2d 287 (1972) (shifting

foundation rendered home ‘‘uninhabitable’’); Morton v.

Travelers Indemnity Co., 171 Neb. 433, 439, 106 N.W.2d

710 (1960) (‘‘[a consulting engineer] advised that the

walls needed to be replaced or repaired by being braced

or otherwise supported, because they could completely

collapse in the foreseeable future’’); Morton v. Great

American Ins. Co., 77 N.M. 35, 37, 419 P.2d 239 (1966)

(‘‘the failure and collapse of a part of [the] plaintiffs’

house was of such an extent that its condition created

an unsafe and dangerous situation with the possibility

of further extensive damage to [the] dwelling’’ (internal

quotation marks omitted)); Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Nelson, 361 S.W.2d 704, 709 (Tex. 1962)

(‘‘[w]e think the term [collapse] can be defined properly

as a sinking, bulging, breaking or pulling away of the

foundation or walls or other supports so as materially

to impair their function and to render the house unfit

for habitation’’); Thornewell v. Indiana Lumbermens

Mutual Ins. Co., 33 Wis. 2d 344, 349, 147 N.W.2d 317

(1967) (‘‘[i]f the condition of the part of the building

claimed to be in a state of collapse is such that the

basic structure or substantial integrity of the part is

materially impaired so that it cannot perform its structural function as a part of the building and is in immediate danger of disintegrating, then it can be said to be

in a state of collapse within the meaning of the extended
coverage of the policy’’). Like many of these courts,

we concluded in Beach that ‘‘[r]equiring the insured to

await an actual collapse [before coverage is triggered]

would not only be economically wasteful . . . but

would also conflict with the insured’s contractual and

[common-law] duty to mitigate damages.’’ (Citation

omitted.) Beach v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co.,

supra, 205 Conn. 253 n.2.

Cases that have been decided since Beach, with the

exception of the crumbling basement wall cases in Connecticut, also require that a building be in imminent

danger of falling down and therefore unsafe for its

intended purpose. This requirement, as many of these

courts have observed, ‘‘avoids both the absurdity of

requiring an insured to wait for a seriously damaged

building to fall and the improper extension of coverage

beyond the terms of the policy . . . .’’ Doheny West

Homeowners’ Assn. v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., 60 Cal. App. 4th 400, 406, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d

260 (1997) (‘‘since any of the excluded causes could

result in collapse if the initial damage was neglected

for a long enough period, an [imminence] limitation is

logically necessary if we are to avoid converting this

insurance policy into a maintenance agreement,’’ and

‘‘[t]his construction of the policy . . . is consistent

with the policy language and the reasonable expectations of the insured’’); see also KAAPA Ethanol, LLC

v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 660 F.3d 299, 306 (8th Cir.

2011) (imminence requirement ‘‘comports with the reasonable expectations of the parties to the insurance

contract . . . and achieves an appropriate middle

ground that avoids eviscerating catastrophic coverage

of collapse . . . or effectively nullifying the faulty

workmanship and settling exclusions’’); Buczek v. Continental Casualty Ins. Co., 378 F.3d 284, 290 (3d Cir.

2004) (defining ‘‘collapse’’ as substantial impairment of

structural integrity that ‘‘connotes imminent collapse

threatening the preservation of the building as a structure or . . . health and safety’’ (emphasis in original;

internal quotation marks omitted)); Whispering Creek

Condominium Owner Assn. v. Alaska National Ins.

Co., 774 P.2d 176, 179 (Alaska 1989) (substantial impairment standard was satisfied because building ‘‘was dangerous and in immediate danger of complete collapse’’);

Doheny West Homeowners’ Assn. v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., supra, 406 (jurisdictions that

apply substantial impairment standard ‘‘do not extend

coverage to impairment of structural integrity, even if

the impairment is substantial, if it is unrelated to actual

collapse,’’ but, rather, ‘‘those [jurisdictions] either

implicitly or explicitly require that collapse be imminent

and inevitable, or all but inevitable’’); Doheny West

Homeowners’ Assn. v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., supra, 407 (observing that Beach itself was

‘‘decided on facts that indicate imminent danger and a

degree of damage that indicates that the building will
not stand’’); Fantis Foods, Inc. v. North River Ins. Co.,

332 N.J. Super. 250, 260, 753 A.2d 176 (App. Div.) (if

policy contains no definition of term ‘‘collapse,’’ ‘‘such

a policy must be taken to cover any serious impairment

of structural integrity that connotes imminent collapse

threatening the preservation of the building as a structure or the health and safety of occupants and [passersby]’’), cert. denied, 165 N.J. 677, 762 A.2d 658 (2000);

401 Fourth Street, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Group, 583 Pa.

445, 460, 879 A.2d 166 (2005) (‘‘imminent falling down

of a building or part thereof’’ was required to trigger

collapse coverage); Ocean Winds Council of Co-Owners, Inc. v. Auto-Owner Ins. Co., 350 S.C. 268, 271, 565

S.E.2d 306 (2002) (‘‘[w]e find a requirement of imminent

collapse is the most reasonable construction of the

policy clause covering risks of direct physical loss

involving collapse’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We agree with these well reasoned cases. We also

agree with the following explication of the standard set

forth by the Washington Supreme Court in Queen Anne

Park Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty

Co., 183 Wn. 2d 485, 352 P.3d 790 (2015): ‘‘Of the definitions [of collapse] offered . . . substantial impairment

of structural integrity is both reasonable and the most

favorable to the insured. Based on the language of the

[p]olicy, however, we caution that ‘collapse’ must mean

something more than mere ‘settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion.’ . . . Also, we note that

‘structural integrity’ of a building means a building’s

ability to remain upright and ‘substantial impairment’

means a severe impairment. Taken together, ‘substantial impairment’ of ‘structural integrity’ means an

impairment so severe as to materially impair a building’s

ability to remain upright. Considering the [p]olicy as a

whole, [the court] conclude[s] that ‘substantial impairment of structural integrity’ means the substantial

impairment of the structural integrity of all or part of

a building that renders all or part of the building unfit

for its function or unsafe and, in this case, means more

than mere settling, cracking, shrinkage, bulging, or

expansion.’’ (Citation omitted; footnote omitted) Id.,

491–92.

In our view, to conclude otherwise would not only

nullify the exclusion contained in the plaintiffs’ homeowners insurance policy for losses related to ‘‘settling,

cracking, shrinkage, bulging or expansion,’’ but would

strip the term ‘‘collapse’’ of its natural and ordinary

meaning. The plaintiffs’ assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, an imminence requirement does not render collapse coverage under their policy illusory; it

merely gives effect to the reasonable expectations of

the parties as evidenced by the language of the policy.

We therefore disagree with the plaintiffs that Beach

supports the view that the substantial impairment standard may be satisfied merely by evidence that a building

will eventually fall down, even if it is in no present
danger of doing so, and likely can be safely occupied

for years, if not decades, into the future.

Relying primarily on Roberts v. Liberty Mutual Fire

Ins. Co., supra, 264 F. Supp. 3d 394, the plaintiffs nevertheless contend that an ‘‘eventual collapse’’ standard is

appropriate because it accords with this court’s statements in Beach that (1) the Beaches’ house ‘‘eventually

. . . would have fallen into the cellar’’; (internal quotation marks omitted) Beach v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., supra, 205 Conn. 249; (2) the Beaches ‘‘continued in occupancy’’ while repairs were made; id., 248;

and (3) the substantial impairment standard was satisfied ‘‘even though no actual [caving in had] occurred

and the structure was not rendered completely uninhabitable.’’ Id., 253.

We are not persuaded that any of these statements

in Beach are incompatible or otherwise in tension with

an imminence requirement. Our acknowledgment that

the Beaches’ house had not yet caved in but ultimately

would do so was a statement of fact intended merely

to underscore that an actual collapse was not necessary

to trigger coverage under the standard we adopted.

Likewise, our statement that the Beaches remained in

their home while repairs were made contains no suggestion that it was safe for them to do so or, more generally,

that a building that is not in any imminent danger of

falling down and therefore poses no immediate threat to

its occupants could nevertheless satisfy the substantial

impairment standard. Indeed, we sometimes take calculated risks with respect to our personal safety, and the

fact that we do so does not render those risks prudent

or any less perilous. It bears emphasis, moreover, that

the trial referee credited testimony in Beach that ‘‘the

foundation wall had tipped over into the basement from

the top and was no longer supporting the house.’’

(Emphasis added.) Id., 248. In view of this and other

findings concerning the urgent nature of the problem,

including the trial court’s express determination that

the house was in ‘‘imminent danger of falling over’’; id.,

249; it cannot reasonably be argued either that there

was no immediate risk of the house’s falling down or

that the house posed no threat to the physical safety

of those who resided there, even if they chose to remain

in the house while it was being repaired.

We therefore conclude that, to meet the substantial

impairment standard, an insured whose home has not

actually collapsed must present evidence demonstrating that the home nevertheless is in imminent danger

of such a collapse. Of course, whether this evidence

satisfies the standard in any particular case necessarily

will depend on the specific facts of the case and the

strength and credibility of the expert testimony adduced

by the insured and the insurer.

III
Finally, we turn to the issue of whether the coverage

exclusion in the policy for the collapse of the home’s

‘‘foundation’’ unambiguously includes the basement

walls of the home. In support of their contention that

it does not, the plaintiffs primarily rely on the decisions

of the United States District Court for the District of

Connecticut and state trial courts, which uniformly

have rejected insurers’ claims that the foundation of a

home clearly includes the home’s basement walls;

rather, those courts have concluded that the term reasonably can be interpreted to refer solely to the footings

beneath the basement walls. In contending that those

cases were wrongly decided, the defendant identifies

what it claims are significant flaws in the reasoning of

the decisions and emphasizes, first, that neither this

court nor the Appellate Court has ever endorsed the

view that the term ‘‘foundation’’ properly can be understood to refer solely to the footings beneath the foundation’s walls and, second, that virtually every independent source of the meaning of the term, including

dictionaries, newspaper articles, statutes, and recent

government reports addressing the state’s so-called

crumbling foundations crisis, categorically refute that

view. The defendant also argues that the plaintiffs’

homeowners insurance policy itself belies any such

understanding of the meaning of the term ‘‘foundation’’

because the policy expressly distinguishes between a

‘‘footing’’ and a ‘‘foundation,’’ thereby making clear that

the two terms have different meanings. We conclude

that the term ‘‘foundation’’ in the plaintiffs’ policy unambiguously includes the home’s basement walls.

We begin our analysis by noting that the plaintiffs do

not dispute that basement walls are invariably considered part of a building’s foundation in state and local

building codes and among building professionals.

Indeed, the plaintiffs’ own expert, Grandpre, testified

unequivocally on this point during his deposition.

Grandpre also testified that the definition of ‘‘foundation’’ contained in the report of the Department of Consumer Protection on the crumbling foundations issue

comports with his own understanding of that word.

That report provides that ‘‘[a] foundation for a residential structure consists of three essential parts. The footing provides the base which supports the foundation

walls and the slab forms the floor.’’ (Emphasis added.)

Report on Deteriorating Concrete in Residential Foundations, supra, p. 2 n.1. According to Grandpre, this

definition is ‘‘the standard of the industry . . . .’’

Of course, the fact that building professionals invariably understand that basement walls are part of a

home’s foundation is not dispositive of our inquiry

because it is well settled that the terms of an insurance

policy, unless otherwise clearly defined in the policy

itself, must be construed as laypersons understand

them. See, e.g., Israel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Ins. Co., 259 Conn. 503, 509, 789 A.2d 974 (2002); see

also 2 S. Plitt et al., Couch on Insurance (3d Ed. Rev.

2010) § 22:38, p. 22-164 (‘‘[t]he rule that words in insurance policies are to be construed using their ordinary

and popular meanings has long been recognized . . .

and has been applied in the context of various types

of insurance’’). We are persuaded, however, that even

laypersons with no special knowledge of building codes

or the intricacies of home construction understand that

the concrete basement walls of a home are part of

its foundation.

Our conclusion finds support in the various dictionaries in circulation at or around the time the policy was

issued to the plaintiffs. See, e.g., Buell Industries, Inc.

v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co., 259 Conn. 527,

539, 791 A.2d 489 (2002) (it is appropriate to look to

dictionary definition of term to ascertain its commonly

approved meaning). For example, Webster’s Third New

International Dictionary defines ‘‘foundation’’ in relevant part as ‘‘the supporting part of a wall or structure

usu[ally] below ground level and including footings

. . . the whole masonry substructure of a building

. . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (2002) p. 898. Consistent with this

definition, it defines ‘‘footing’’ in relevant part as ‘‘an

enlargement at the lower end of a foundation wall,

pier, or column to distribute the load . . . .’’ (Emphasis

added.) Id., p. 885. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary similarly defines ‘‘foundation’’ in relevant part as

‘‘the whole masonry substructure of a building . . . .’’

(Emphasis added.) Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th Ed. 2003) p. 494. According to the Random

House Unabridged Dictionary, a ‘‘footing’’ is ‘‘the part

of a foundation bearing directly upon the earth.’’

(Emphasis added.) Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2d Ed. 1993) p. 746. These sources demonstrate

that, although footings are certainly part of a home’s

foundation, they do not constitute the entire foundation, which is also comprised of the basement walls.9

The fact that concrete basement walls, and not just

footings, comprise a home’s foundation has also been

confirmed repeatedly by the government entities tasked

with addressing Connecticut’s crumbling foundations

problem, including the legislature, the Office of the

Attorney General, the Department of Insurance and, as

previously noted, the Department of Consumer Protection. In all of their public pronouncements addressing

the issue, these entities have unfailingly referred to the

affected basement walls as crumbling foundations. See,

e.g., General Statutes § 8-441 (establishing ‘‘Crumbling

Foundations Assistance Fund’’); General Statutes § 8-442

(establishing ‘‘Collapsing Foundations Credit Enhancements Program’’); General Statutes § 8-443 (a) (authorizing municipal joint borrowing ‘‘from any source for the

purpose of paying for all or part of the cost of any project

entered into jointly to abate a deleterious condition on
real property that, if left unabated, would cause the collapse of a concrete foundation due to the presence of

pyrrhotite’’); General Statutes § 8-445(authorizing issuance of bonding for purposes of ‘‘Crumbling Foundations Assistance Fund’’); General Statutes § 20-327b (d)

(4) (G) (‘‘[p]rospective buyers may have a concrete foundation inspected by a licensed professional engineer

. . . for deterioration of the foundation due to the presence of pyrrhotite’’); Letter from Attorney General

George Jepsen to Governor Dannel P. Malloy and Jonathan A. Harris, Commissioner of Consumer Protection

(July 7, 2016) (concerning consumer protection investigation of ‘‘[c]rumbling [c]oncrete [h]ome [f]oundations’’), available at https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DCP/

pdf/ConcreteStatusreporttoGovandDCPJuly2016PDF

.PDF?la=en (last visited November 6, 2019); Letter from

Andrew N. Mais, Insurance Commissioner, to Insurers

Writing Homeowners and Condominium Insurance in

Connecticut (June 10, 2019) (2019 update to insurers

concerning ‘‘foundations that are crumbling or otherwise deteriorating’’), available at https://portal.ct.gov/-/

media/CID/2019CrumblingFoundationNotice.pdf (last

visited November 6, 2019). Notably, other government

publications are in accord with this understanding of

what comprises a foundation. For example, a handbook

on home construction issued by the United States

Department of Agriculture provides that ‘‘[f]oundation

walls form an enclosure for basements or crawl spaces

and carry wall, floor, roof, and other building loads.’’ U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No.

73: Wood-Frame House Construction (Rev. April, 1975)

p. 8, available at https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/

CAT 87209853/PDF (last visited November 6, 2019). That

handbook also provided that ‘‘footings act as the base

of the foundation and transmit the superimposed load

to the soil.’’ (Emphasis in original.) Id., p. 5. Moreover,

media reports addressing the crumbling foundations

problem also consistently have referred to the affected

basement walls as crumbling foundations. E.g., L. Foderaro & K. Hussey, ‘‘Financial Relief Eludes Connecticut

Homeowners with Crumbling Foundations,’’ N.Y. Times,

November 15, 2016, p. A24 (referring to ‘‘crumbling concrete foundations’’); S. Haigh, ‘‘Lawmakers Continue

Push To Address Crumbling Foundations,’’ U.S. News

& World Report, March 8, 2019 (referring to Connecticut’s ‘‘crumbling foundations prob-lem’’), available at

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/connecticut/

articles/2019-03-08/lawmakers-look-to-more-bills-to

-address-crumbling-basements (last visited November

6, 2019).

Our conclusion finds further support in the fact that,

for well over one century, this court has used the term

‘‘foundation wall’’ when referring to the basement wall

of a building. Beach v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance

Co., supra, 205 Conn. 248 (‘‘[t]he crack in the north

foundation wall continued to widen, and by May of 1976
had reached a width of approximately nine inches’’);

see also Menga v. Kabakoff, 110 Conn. 381, 383, 148 A.

131 (1930) (‘‘[t]here is no claim that the outside of the

foundation walls above the ground was not stuccoed’’);

O’Keefe v. Corp. of St. Francis’s Church, 59 Conn. 551,

556, 22 A. 325 (1890) (‘‘the foundation walls were carried

to a much greater depth than intended in the original

plan or called for in the specifications and contract’’);

Gear v. Barnum, 37 Conn. 229, 231 (1870) (‘‘[t]he foundation walls of a building are a part of the building

itself’’). The fact that we have done so, although not

dispositive of the issue before us, fortifies the conclusion that, in common parlance, a ‘‘basement wall’’ and

a ‘‘foundation wall’’ are one and the same.

Finally, the policy contains an exclusion for loss to

a ‘‘foundation’’ and, by endorsement, loss to a ‘‘footing’’

caused by water or ice. If the term ‘‘foundation’’ means

‘‘footing,’’ as the plaintiffs contend, then the ‘‘footing’’

endorsement is superfluous. ‘‘We previously have recognized the canon of construction of insurance policies

that a policy should not be interpreted so as to render

any part of it superfluous. . . . Since it must be

assumed that each word contained in an insurance policy is intended to serve a purpose, every term will be

given effect if that can be done by any reasonable construction . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 273

Conn. 448, 468, 870 A.2d 1048 (2005). The redundancy

that results from the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the

policy readily can be avoided by treating the terms

‘‘footing’’ and ‘‘foundation’’ as having different meanings, a result that, as we have explained, is also dictated

by the dictionary definitions of those two terms.

The plaintiffs nonetheless urge us to follow the decisions of the United States District Court for the District

of Connecticut and state trial courts that have

addressed this issue, all of which have concluded that

the term ‘‘foundation’’ reasonably may be understood

to refer solely to the footings beneath the basement

walls. Although we hold these courts in high regard,

for the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded by

the reasoning underlying their conclusion that the term

‘‘foundation’’ is ambiguous because it is reasonably susceptible of the meaning attributed to it by the plaintiffs,

namely, that it includes only the footings and not the

basement walls themselves.

The first case in which a Connecticut court found

the term ‘‘foundation’’ to be ambiguous, which many

courts later followed, was Bacewicz v. NGM Ins. Co.,

Docket No. 3:08-CV-1530 (JCH), 2010 WL 3023882 (D.

Conn. August 2, 2010). As in the present case, the named

defendant in Bacewicz, NGM Insurance Company,

argued that the plaintiffs, Joseph Bacewicz and Janice

Bacewicz, could not recover for the alleged collapse of

their basement walls because foundations were
expressly excluded under the collapse provisions of

their homeowners insurance policy. Id., *3. And like

the plaintiffs in the present case, the Bacewiczes maintained that the term ‘‘foundation’’ reasonably could be

understood as connoting only the footings beneath their

basement walls. Id. Although acknowledging that

‘‘much of the evidence in [the] case indicates that the

terms ‘basement walls’ and ‘foundation walls’ are used

interchangeably’’; id., *4; for two reasons, the District

Court nevertheless sided with the Bacewiczes. See id.

First, the District Court found support for the interpretation advanced by the Bacewiczes in Turner v.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Cos., 614 So. 2d 1029 (Ala.

1993). See Bacewicz v. NGM Ins. Co., supra, 2010 WL

3023882, *4 (citing Turner and noting that ‘‘at least one

other court considering a similar question has held that

‘a person of ordinary intelligence could reasonably conclude . . . that the term ‘‘foundation’’ refers only to

[footings]’ ’’). In Turner, the plaintiffs, Gary Lee Turner

and Linda C. Turner, purchased their home while it

was still under construction. See Turner v. State Farm

Fire & Casualty Cos., supra, 1030. Before the house

was completed, a basement wall collapsed; id.; and the

Turners filed a claim under their builder’s risk insurance

policy, which the defendant insurer, State Farm Fire

and Casualty Companies (State Farm), denied on the

ground that the policy’s collapse provision excluded

foundations. See id., 1030–31. The Turners thereafter

commenced an action against State Farm, which subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming

that the Turners’ basement walls were excluded from

coverage under the unambiguous terms of the policy.

See id. The trial court agreed with State Farm and

granted its summary judgment motion. See id., 1030.

On appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court, the Turners

claimed ‘‘that the term ‘foundation’ [should] not encompass their basement walls because . . . the walls were

free standing when constructed and formed the interior

walls of the first floor of the house. [The Turners] filled

dirt around the walls to make a basement sometime

after their construction.’’ (Emphasis added.) Id., 1031.

Because the walls purportedly had formed the interior

walls of the first floor of their home when they purchased it, the Turners maintained that ‘‘they understood

the term ‘foundation’ to mean the [three by three footing] under the basement wall.’’ Id. Solely on the basis

of the Turners’ testimony, the Alabama Supreme Court

concluded that ‘‘a person of ordinary intelligence could

reasonably conclude, as the Turners say they did, that

the term ‘foundation’ refers only to the piece of concrete

at the base of the wall . . . .’’10 Id., 1032.

We agree with the defendant that, contrary to the

conclusion of the District Court in Bacewicz, Turner

is not persuasive authority. To begin with, the facts of

that case are readily distinguishable because there is

no claim in the present case that the plaintiffs’ basement
walls ever formed the interior walls of the first floor

of their home. Perhaps more fundamentally, the court

in Turner engaged in no meaningful analysis of whether

the term ‘‘foundation’’ is reasonably susceptible of a

meaning that would exclude a home’s basement walls

but, rather, simply relied on the Turners’ subjective

understanding of that word, in contravention of the

established principle that a party’s subjective understanding of the language used in a contract, unless

objectively reasonable, does not render the language

ambiguous. See, e.g., Yellow Book Sales & Distribution

Co. v. Valle, 311 Conn. 112, 119, 84 A.3d 1196 (2014)

(‘‘any ambiguity in a contract must emanate from the

language used in the contract rather than from one

party’s subjective perception of the terms’’ (internal

quotation marks omitted)).

In concluding that the term ‘‘foundation’’ is ambiguous, the court in Bacewicz also relied on the deposition

testimony of Grandpre, who, as in the present case,

was retained by the homeowners and testified as an

expert witness on their behalf. The District Court

observed that Grandpre’s testimony ‘‘appear[ed] to indicate that there are multiple definitions of the term ‘foundation.’ ’’ Bacewicz v. NGM Ins. Co., supra, 2010 WL

3023882, *4. Grandpre, however, provided no such testimony in the present case. To the contrary, he stated

unequivocally that a foundation is comprised of three

parts: the basement walls, the basement floor and the

footings beneath the basement walls. Bacewicz, in our

view, loses its persuasive force in light of the foregoing

critique of Turner and the differing testimony of

Grandpre.

Since Bacewicz, federal and state courts consistently

have rejected insurers’ claims that the term ‘‘foundation’’ unambiguously includes basement walls, concluding, instead, largely on the basis of Bacewicz—or cases

that relied on Bacewicz—that the word is also reasonably understood to refer solely to the footings beneath

a basement wall. See, e.g., Clark v. Amica Mutual Ins.

Co., Docket No. 3:16cv1573 (JBA), 2018 WL 2725441,

*3 (D. Conn. June 6, 2018) (‘‘[The] [d]efendant acknowledges that courts in this district have previously held

that the term ‘foundation’ is ambiguous. . . . Those

cases note that the term ‘foundation’ could also mean

the ‘footings’ of a structure as a number of dictionaries

define the term ‘foundation’ as ‘the lowest [load bearing]

part of the building.’ . . . Indeed, in Bacewicz, the

court specifically [concluded] . . . that ‘a reasonable

jury could find that the basement walls of the [plaintiffs’] house did not constitute the ‘‘foundation’’ of the

house.’ ’’ [Citations omitted.]); Roberts v. Liberty

Mutual Fire Ins. Co., supra, 264 F. Supp. 3d 412 (concluding that basement walls were not unambiguously

part of foundation); Metsack v. Liberty Mutual Fire

Ins. Co., Docket No. 3:14-CV-01150 (VLB), 2015 WL

5797016, *6 (D. Conn. September 30, 2015) (citing
Bacewicz and noting that ‘‘[p]rior courts have held that

the term ‘foundation’ could refer to the ‘footings’ of a

structure, citing an Alabama Supreme Court case

[namely, Turner] which described the ‘footings’ as a

‘[three by three] foot piece of concrete under the basement wall’ ’’); Gabriel v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co.,

Docket No. 3:14-CV-01435-VAB, 2015 WL 5684063, *3–4

(D. Conn. September 28, 2015) (citing Bacewicz and

noting that United States District Court for the District

of Connecticut ‘‘has held several times in recent cases

involving nearly identical facts and policy language that

the [term] ‘foundation’ . . . [is] ambiguous . . . . The

same conclusion is appropriate here. The term ‘foundation’ is ambiguous because it is reasonably susceptible

to the [plaintiffs’] interpretation to mean footings under

the basement walls . . . .’’ [Citations omitted.]); Belz

v. Peerless Ins. Co., 46 F. Supp. 3d 157, 163 (D. Conn.

2014) (citing Bacewicz and noting that United States

District Court for District of Connecticut ‘‘has not only

already held that the term ‘foundation’ is ambiguous,

but it did so in a case involving similar basement wall

cracking and identical policy language’’); Karas v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 33 F. Supp. 3d 110, 115 (D. Conn. 2014)

(citingBacewicz for proposition that alternative ‘‘definition of ‘foundation’ could be the footing [on] which

the basement walls rest, which does not include the

basement walls’’); Dino v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America,

supra, 66 Conn. L. Rptr. 666 (citing Bacewicz and noting

that ‘‘[e]very state and federal court decision in Connecticut considering this issue has concluded that ‘foundation’ . . . [is] ambiguous as applied to the basement

walls of a house’’); Roy v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co.,

Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, Docket No.

CV-15-6009410-S (February 22, 2017) (citing Bacewicz

for proposition that ‘‘the term ‘foundation’ is ambiguous

because ‘a person of ordinary intelligence could reasonably conclude . . . that the term ‘‘foundation’’ refers

to the piece of concrete at the base of the wall, rather

than a concrete basement wall itself’ ’’). Ordinarily, the

weight and unanimity of such authority would lead us

to the same conclusion. As we have indicated, however,

the holding of each of these cases inherited the same

analytical infirmities found in Bacewicz.

Recently, several courts have provided two additional

reasons for concluding that the term ‘‘foundation’’ is

ambiguous as to whether it includes a home’s basement

walls, neither of which is persuasive. First, these courts

have found support for their interpretation in the

‘‘replacement value calculation’’ provision of the policy

at issue in the present case, which prescribes the

method of calculating 80 percent of the replacement

value of a covered building and provides in relevant

part: ‘‘To determine the amount of insurance required

to equal [80 percent] of the full replacement cost of the

building immediately before the loss, do not include

the value of:
‘‘(a) Excavations, foundations, piers or any supports

which are below the undersurface of the lowest basement floor;

‘‘(b) Those supports in (a) above which are below

the surface of the ground inside the foundation walls,

if there is no basement; and

‘‘(c), Underground flues, pipes, wiring and drains.’’

Reading the qualifying phrase ‘‘which are below the

undersurface of the lowest basement floor’’ as modifying all of the excluded items in that provision, the

courts have explained that that provision supports the

conclusion that a foundation can be located entirely

below the undersurface of the lowest basement floor.

See, e.g., Metsack v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., supra,

2015 WL 5797016, *7 (‘‘implicit in the [replacement

value] calculation [is the] key [concept] . . . that a

foundation can exist ‘below the undersurface of the

lowest basement floor,’ which implies that a basement

wall and a foundation are not always one and the same’’

[emphasis omitted]); see also Clark v. Amica Mutual

Ins. Co., supra, 2018 WL 2725441, *4 (‘‘the language in

[the replacement value calculation provision] does not

require that the term ‘foundation’ be interpreted as

always including basement walls’’ [emphasis omitted]).

When the provision is read in this manner, the definition

of ‘‘foundation’’ necessarily excludes a home’s basement walls because basement walls are always above

the undersurface of the lowest basement floor.

As the defendant contends, however, this interpretation of the replacement value calculation provision runs

afoul of the last antecedent rule, a principle of contract

and statutory interpretation pursuant to which a limiting clause or phrase is read as modifying only the noun

or phrase that immediately precedes it; e.g., Corsair

Special Situations Fund, L.P. v. Engineered Framing

Systems, Inc., 327 Conn. 467, 475, 174 A.3d 791 (2018);

see also Connecticut Ins. Guaranty Assn. v. Drown,

314 Conn. 161, 190, 101 A.3d 200 (2014); unless the

limiting language is separated from the preceding noun

or phrase by a comma, in which case ‘‘one may infer

that the qualifying phrase is intended to apply to all its

antecedents, not only the one immediately preceding

it.’’ State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 76, 3 A.3d

783 (2010). Because there is no comma separating the

phrase ‘‘which are below the undersurface of the lowest

basement floor’’ from the list of items excluded from

the replacement value calculation, that phrase, in the

absence of evidence of a contrary intention—and there

is none in this case—is properly read as referring solely

to the phrase ‘‘or any supports . . . .’’

Although the last antecedent rule is not inviolate, its

application in the present case makes perfect sense.

We see no reason why the parties, in determining 80

percent of the replacement cost of a home, would
exclude only a fraction of the cost of the excavation,

foundation, and piers—namely, the cost corresponding

to the portion of those items that lie ‘‘below the undersurface of the lowest basement floor . . . .’’ Application of the last antecedent rule, by contrast, yields an

eminently reasonable construction of the replacement

value calculation provision pursuant to which every

item that is below the surface of the ground, including

underground flues, pipes, wiring and drains, is excluded

from the calculation, rather than merely a portion of

some of those items.

Applying the canon of statutory construction known

as noscitur a sociis, which in Latin means ‘‘it is known

by its associates’’; (internal quotation marks omitted)

State v. Agron, 323 Conn. 629, 635 n.3, 148 A.3d 1052

(2016); at least two courts also have concluded that,

because the other items excluded from coverage under

the collapse provisions of the policy generally are

located outside of a home,11 the foundation exclusion

is ambiguous insofar as it is not clear whether the exclusion applies to the foundation beneath an insured’s

home or to some other foundation peripheral to the

home. See, e.g., Metsack v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins.

Co., supra, 2015 WL 5797016, *7 n.2 (‘‘Given that the

term ‘foundation’ is ambiguous, the [c]ourt notes that

[the plaintiffs’] interpretation is potentially supported

by the interpretative [principle] of noscitur a sociis

. . . . With the exception of ‘foundation,’ all of the

terms used in the exclusion reference ancillary structures to the building itself. A reasonable trier of fact

could conclude that the other terms used in the exclusion shed light on the term ‘foundation’ and suggest

that term to be a reference to a more ancillary structure

than the wall of a basement room.’’ [Citation omitted.]);

Roy v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., supra, Superior

Court, Docket No. CV-15-6009410-S (‘‘[T]his section of

the policy appears to exclude items that would be found

outside of a building, and not inside a building, such

as an awning, fence, patio, pavement, pool, [and] septic

tank. This list of outside items suggests that what was

intended by this exclusion language includes only items

found outside of the home or at a minimum renders

it ambiguous.’’).

The canon of noscitur a sociis, however, is applied

to aid in the construction of a statute only when the

statutory terms are ambiguous; see, e.g., Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC, 331 Conn. 53,

178, 202 A.3d 262, cert. denied sub nom. Remington

Arms Co., LLC v. Soto, U.S. , 140 S. Ct. 513, 205

L. Ed. 2d 317 (2019); and not ‘‘to create uncertainty in

an otherwise unambiguous term . . . .’’ Schenkel &

Shultz, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 119 F.3d 548, 551

(7th Cir.1997). Because we conclude that the term

‘‘foundation’’ unambiguously includes a home’s basement walls, applying the canon in the present case is

unwarranted. The use of the canon in the present case,
moreover, also contravenes the canon of statutory and

contract interpretation that, ordinarily, when the same

words are used two or more times, they will be given

the same meaning in each instance. See, e.g., State v.

Lutters, 270 Conn. 198, 211, 853 A.2d 434 (2004); see

also 4 W. Jaeger, Williston on the Law of Contracts (3d

Ed. 1961) § 618, pp. 715–16 (it may be presumed that

words used repeatedly in same contract have same

meaning throughout contract). The plaintiffs do not

dispute that the term ‘‘foundation’’ appears throughout

the policy, not just in the provision pertaining to collapse.12 In the absence of evidence of a contrary intention, therefore, we presume that the parties intended

the term to mean the same thing each time it is used,

rather than one thing for purposes of applying the collapse provision and something entirely different for

every other purpose. See, e.g., Chesapeake Energy

Corp. v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., N.A., 773

F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2014) (rejecting contract interpretation that would ‘‘[cause] the term to mean different

things in different instances of its appearance’’). In considering the plaintiffs’ argument, we are also mindful

that, for the vast majority of single-family home owners,

there is only one foundation covered by their homeowners insurance policy: the foundation located directly

beneath the home, on which the home rests. We disagree, therefore, that a reasonable homeowner in the

plaintiffs’ position, upon reading the term ‘‘foundation’’

in his or her homeowners insurance policy, would

believe that the reference did not pertain to the foundation attached to the house but, rather, to some other,

likely nonexistent foundation.

Finally, we reject the plaintiffs’ contention that the

foundation exclusion should not be enforced as written

because the policy expressly covers the ‘‘collapse of a

building or any part of a building’’ and a foundation

indisputably is part of a building. In the plaintiffs’ view,

excluding the foundation from coverage would render

coverage under the policy illusory. As this court has

explained, however, ‘‘[t]he reason for or purpose of an

exclusion clause in a policy is to eliminate from coverage specified losses . . . [that] except for the exclusion clause would remain under the coverage. . . .

[T]he word exclusion signifies . . . circumstances in

which the insurance company will not assume liability

for a specific risk or hazard that otherwise would be

included within the general scope of the policy.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation

marks omitted.) Hammer v. Lumberman’s Mutual

Casualty Co., 214 Conn. 573, 588–89, 573 A.2d 699

(1990). Unless the exclusionary language eliminates

coverage altogether, it does not render the coverage

illusory. See, e.g., R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 333 Conn. 343, 373–74, 216 A.3d

629 (2019) (‘‘even a significant exclusion limiting available coverage does not mean that the insured did not
get the coverage for which it bargained . . . or that

the insurance policies . . . are rendered meaningless

by virtue of the denial of coverage’’ [internal quotation

marks omitted]); Connecticut Ins. Guaranty Assn. v.

Drown, 134 Conn. App. 140, 153, 37 A.3d 820 (2012)

(rejecting claim that coverage was illusory because,

‘‘[a]lthough [the] exclusion . . . place[d] limits on coverage, [it did] not . . . [eviscerate] all coverage under

the policy’’), aff’d, 314 Conn. 161, 101 A.3d 200 (2014).

Accordingly, the fact that the clause at issue limits the

scope of the policy’s coverage for ‘‘a building or part

of a building’’ by excluding part of the building (the

foundation) does not render that coverage a nullity. As

the defendant stated at oral argument, the policy offers

unqualified coverage for the collapse of a building or

part of a building that may result from any number

of perils. There are even circumstances in which the

foundation itself is covered, such as when the collapse

is the result of wind, fire or an explosion, or if the

foundation collapses as a result of the collapse of the

building. Moreover, the defendant also acknowledges

that, even when the collapse of a foundation is excluded

from coverage because it resulted from hidden decay

within the foundation itself, any damage to the rest of

the building caused by that collapse would be covered.13

See, e.g., Campbell v. Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire

Ins. Co., 682 A.2d 933, 936 (R.I. 1996) (‘‘if the collapse

of the basement’s foundation was the cause of the building’s complete destruction, the insured could collect

for loss sustained to the upper portion of the dwelling

but not for damage to the foundation because loss to

the foundation was the direct result of the falling in of

the foundation itself and not the direct result of the

falling in of the entire building’’ (internal quotation

marks omitted)).

We acknowledge, as the plaintiffs note, that the

Rhode Island Supreme Court reached a different conclusion with respect to this issue in Campbell, a per

curiam opinion in which the court determined that the

foundation exclusion at issue ‘‘render[ed] illusory as

applied to the foundation the earlier policy provision

purporting to insure against the risk of ‘collapse of a

building or any part of a building.’ ’’ Id. The court in

Campbell did not explain, however, why exempting the

foundation from the provision granting coverage for

the collapse of a building would render that coverage

illusory, and we cannot perceive any justification for

that conclusion in light of the fact that the policy at

issue in that case, like the policy in the present case,

covers many other losses due to the structure’s collapse. Indeed, the decision of the Rhode Island Supreme

Court in Campbell runs counter to that court’s repeated

holding, consistent with our own precedent and the

case law of virtually every other state, that a policy

provision offering coverage for a particular peril will

not be deemed illusory unless it would not result in
coverage under any reasonably expected set of circumstances. See, e.g., Great American E & S Ins. Co. v.

End Zone Pub & Grill of Narragansett, Inc., 45 A.3d

571, 576 (R.I. 2012) (‘‘[w]e will deem an exclusion to an

insurance policy illusory only when it would preclude

coverage in almost any circumstance’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); see Pressman v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 574 A.2d 757, 759 (R.I. 1990) (it was

against public policy to apply narrow definition to term

in insurance policy because such application rendered

coverage illusory); see also, e.g., Bethel v. Darwin Select

Ins. Co., 735 F.3d 1035, 1040, 1041 (8th Cir. 2013) (Minnesota law applies doctrine of illusory coverage to construe insurance contracts ‘‘so as not to be a delusion

to the insured’’ and to avoid ‘‘functionally nonexistent’’

coverage (internal quotation marks omitted)); Cynergy,

LLC v. First American Title Ins. Co., 706 F.3d 1321,

1327 (11th Cir. 2013) (‘‘under Georgia law, an insurance

policy may not purport to offer coverage that inevitably

will be defeated by one of the policy’s exclusions—in

other words, the policy may not offer coverage that is

chimerical’’). In light of the foregoing, we conclude that

the term ‘‘foundation’’ in the plaintiffs’ homeowners

insurance policy unambiguously includes the plaintiffs’

basement walls and that the collapse provision in that

policy applies to any foundation located on the plaintiffs’ property, including the one beneath the plaintiffs’ house.

IV

We, of course, recognize the seriousness of the crumbling foundations problem that confronts the plaintiffs

in the present case, and we also acknowledge the gravity of the problem for so many other homeowners statewide. Our sole task, however, is to construe the plaintiffs’ homeowners insurance policy as we would any

other such contract, that is, in accordance with its terms

as applied to the facts of the case. We have endeavored

to do so here.

The answer to the first certified question is ‘‘yes,’’ that

is, the ‘‘substantial impairment of structural integrity’’

standard is applicable to the ‘‘collapse’’ provision of the

plaintiffs’ homeowners insurance policy.

The answer to the second certified question is the

‘‘substantial impairment of structural integrity’’ standard requires a showing that the building is in imminent

danger of falling down or caving in, that is, in imminent

danger of an actual collapse.

The answer to the third certified question is ‘‘yes,’’

that is, the term ‘‘foundation’’ in the plaintiffs’ homeowners insurance policy unambiguously includes the

basement walls of the plaintiffs’ home.

No costs shall be taxed in this court to any party.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

* November 12, 2019, the date that this decision was released as a slip
opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.

1 General Statutes § 51-199b (d) provides in relevant part: ‘‘The Supreme

Court may answer a question of law certified to it by a court of the United

States . . . if the answer may be determinative of an issue in pending

litigation in the certifying court and if there is no controlling appellate

decision, constitutional provision or statute of this state.’’

2 Following our acceptance of the certified questions, we granted permission to the following groups and individual to file amicus curiae briefs in

this appeal: The American Insurance Association, Property Casualty Insurers

Association of America, and the lnsurance Association of Connecticut, in

support of the defendant’s position, and Connecticut Senator Paul R. Doyle

and United Policyholders in support of the plaintiffs’ position.

3 The plaintiffs’ home was built in 1984.

4 The District Court granted the defendant’s motion with respect to the

plaintiffs’ claims alleging breach of the covenant of good faith and fair

dealing and violations of CUIPA and CUTPA, concluding, inter alia, that

there was no evidence that the defendant had denied the plaintiffs’ claim

in bad faith or otherwise demonstrated a pattern of not attempting in good

faith to promptly and fairly settle claims in which the defendant’s liability

was reasonably clear.

5 We note that, in its proposed third certified question, the defendant

requested that the District Court also seek guidance from this court as to

whether the term ‘‘retaining wall,’’ which, like the term ‘‘foundation,’’ is

excluded from coverage under the policy, unambiguously includes basement

walls. In light of our conclusion that the damage to the basement walls of

the plaintiffs’ home unambiguously falls within the coverage exclusion for

damage to the foundation; see part III of this opinion; we need not decide,

and do not decide, whether the same would be true under the coverage

exclusion for damage to a retaining wall.

6 See L. Foderaro & K. Hussey, ‘‘Financial Relief Eludes Connecticut Homeowners with Crumbling Foundations,’’ N.Y. Times, November 15, 2016, p.

A24.

7 See, e.g., Clark v. Amica Mutual Ins. Co., Docket No. 3:16cv1573 (JBA),

2018 WL 2725441, *3–4 (D. Conn. June 6, 2018); Roberts v. Liberty Mutual

Fire Ins. Co., 264 F. Supp. 3d 394, 412–13 (D. Conn. 2017); Metsack v. Liberty

Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Docket No. 3:14-CV-01150 (VLB), 2015 WL 5797016,

*6 (D. Conn. September 30, 2015); Gabriel v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co.,

Docket No. 3:14-CV-01435-VAB, 2015 WL 5684063, *3–4 (D. Conn. September

28, 2015); Karas v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 33 F. Supp. 3d 110, 115 (D. Conn.

2014); Roy v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Superior Court, judicial district

of Tolland, Docket No. CV-15-6009410-S (February 22, 2017).

8 Under both General Statutes § 51-199b (f) (3) and Practice Book § 82-

4, the order issued by a court certifying a question of law to this court must

state that this court may reformulate any question that is certified, and, in

accordance with those provisions, the certification order issued by the

District Court in the present case contained such a statement. See Karas

v. Liberty Ins. Corp., supra, 2018 WL 2002480, *5. In addition, both § 51-

199b (k) and Practice Book § 82-4 expressly authorize this court to reformulate any question certified to it.

We also note that, as originally certified, the third question would have

required us to determine whether the basement walls of the plaintiffs’ home

fall unambiguously within the meaning of the term ‘‘retaining wall’’ as well

as within the meaning of the term ‘‘foundation.’’ For the reason previously

set forth in footnote 5 of this opinion, we have reformulated the third

certified question by limiting it to the issue of whether the home’s basement

walls are a part of the foundation.

9 The plaintiffs call our attention to Webster’s New World Dictionary of

the American Language, which defines ‘‘foundation’’ as ‘‘the base on which

something rests; specif[ically], the supporting part of a wall, house, etc.,

[that is] usually of masonry, concrete, etc., and at least partially underground

. . . .’’ Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language (2d

College Ed. 1972) p. 551. According to the plaintiffs, under this definition,

because footings are the base on which basement walls rest, the term

‘‘foundation’’ reasonably may be understood to refer solely to the footings.

We are not persuaded. The definition of ‘‘foundation’’ contained in Webster’s

New World Dictionary of the American Language is fully consistent with

the definitions previously set forth because it defines a foundation as being

‘‘at least partially underground,’’ and footings, by their very nature, are

never ‘‘partially underground’’; they are entirely underground, below the

undersurface of the foundation walls and floor.
10 It bears noting that the only definitions of the term ‘‘foundation’’ to

which the court in Turner referred were definitions that, as the court itself

acknowledged, supported State Farm’s contention that the term unambiguously encompasses basement walls. See Turner v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Cos., supra, 614 So. 2d 1031–32.

11 As we previously noted, those items are identified in the policy as ‘‘an

awning, fence, patio, pavement, swimming pool, underground pipe, flue,

drain, cesspool, septic tank, foundation, retaining wall, bulkhead, pier, wharf

or dock . . . .’’

12 For example, ‘‘SECTION I—PERILS INSURED AGAINST’’ provides in

relevant part: ‘‘We do not insure . . . for loss . . . [c]aused by . . . [f]reezing, thawing, pressure or weight of water or ice, whether driven by wind

or not, to a . . . [f]oundation . . . .’’ That section further provides: ‘‘We

do not insure . . . for loss . . . [c]aused by . . . [s]ettling, shrinking, bulging or expansion, including resulting cracking, of pavements, patios, foundations, walls, floors, roofs or ceilings . . . .’’

In addition, ‘‘SECTION I—EXCLUSIONS’’ provides in relevant part: ‘‘We

do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by . . . [w]ater below

the surface of the ground, including water which exerts pressure on or

seeps or leaks through a building, sidewalk, driveway, foundation, swimming

pool or other structure.’’

13 As we previously noted, ‘‘Additional Coverage 8’’ of the policy provides

in relevant part: ‘‘Collapse: We insure for direct physical loss to covered

property involving collapse of a building or any part of a building caused

. . . by . . . b. [h]idden decay . . . . Loss to [a] . . . foundation . . . is

not included under [item] b. . . . unless the loss is a direct result of the

collapse of a building.’’ Under the express terms of the policy, therefore,

the collapse of a building or any part of a building, with the exception of

the foundation, caused by hidden decay anywhere in the building, even in

the foundation, is covered under the policy; loss to the foundation is excluded

from coverage if it caused by hidden decay within the foundation itself.