Opinion ID: 1203563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: fortuitous event

Text: Although F & G issued Allied a multi-peril policy, this broad coverage covers only risks and, as such, affords no coverage for a loss that is certain to occur. This Court has not directly addressed the fortuity issue presented under an all risk insurance policy. Other courts, however, have analogized fortuity to contract law and have defined a fortuitous event as an event dependent on chance to the extent that the parties to the contract are aware. See Restatement Contracts § 291, comment (a) (1931); see also Goodman v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 600 F.2d 1040, 1042 (4th Cir.1979). A fortuitous loss is one that does not result from any inherent defect in the property insured, ordinary wear and tear, or intentional misconduct. A loss resulting in part from an insured's negligence, however, may still come within the definition of a fortuitous loss. Goodman, 600 F.2d at 1042; Avis v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 283 N.C. 142, 149-50, 195 S.E.2d 545, 548 (1973); see generally, S. Cozen and R. Bennett, Fortuity: the Unnamed Exclusion, 20 Forum 222 (1985) (discussing development of fortuity doctrine). When addressing the doctrine of fortuity, some courts have interpreted fortuitous as analogous to the insurance policy term accident. For example, in Insurance Co. of North America v. U.S. Gypsum, 678 F.Supp. 138, 141 (W.D.Va.1988), the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia construed the term accident by focusing on the unplanned and unintentional nature of the damage instead of the fact that the damage was a physical certainty or something inevitable. The U.S. Gypsum court also noted that, in Monterey Corp. v. Hart, 216 Va. 843, 850, 224 S.E.2d 142, 147 (1976), this Court had defined accidental in the same manner as Black's Law Dictionary, to wit: `happen by chance, or unexpectedly; taking place not according to the usual course of things; casual; fortuitous.' Id. 224 S.E.2d at 142. F & G maintains that Allied deliberately filled in the areas behind the warehouse rear wall and that, as early as 1978, Allied was aware of cracking, bulging, and deterioration. Citing a letter received by Allied from its construction engineer, F & G alleges that Allied knew it was inevitable that the wall would fail structurally and, therefore, no insurable risk was covered by the policy. Examining the record, we find no evidence to establish that, when Allied and F & G entered into the insurance contract in 1983, either of them knew that the retaining wall inevitably would fail to support the fill. [1] Although Allied's own experts testified that they would have designed the wall differently, there was no certainty that the wall would not support the fill or that the wall's failure was destined to occur within the time limits of Allied's policy. Moreover, it would be inappropriate for this Court, with the aid of hindsight, to determine that Allied's damage was not a fortuity such as was contemplated by the all-risk policy. See Compagnie des Bauxites v. Insurance Co. of North America, 554 F.Supp. 1080 (W.D.Pa.), rev'd 724 F.2d 369 (3d Cir.1983) (when determining whether or not loss is fortuitous, court should not look upon it as a matter of hindsight). When considering the parties' knowledge at the time they entered into the insurance contract, we conclude that neither party regarded the loss as inevitable. Our finding that Allied's loss is a fortuitous event under the policy, however, does not mean that the loss cannot fall within a contractual exclusion from coverage. Accordingly, we must address the possible applicability of any of the policy exclusions to Allied's claim.