Opinion ID: 2500072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Ensuing Loss Clause

Text: ¶ 35 Under the ensuing loss clause, damages resulting from faulty workmanship are covered if they are caused by an otherwise covered event. Because Vision sought coverage for losses associated with the collapse of the floor resulting from faulty workmanship, we consider whether collapse was covered under the policy. ¶ 36 The all-risk policy did not exclude the peril of collapse. Moreover, it affirmatively appears the parties intended coverage for collapse. For example, one section in Vision's policy excludes losses caused by or resulting from the peril of [r]ain, snow, sleet, or ice. CP at 5977. This exclusion is followed by a clause stating, But we will pay for `loss' ... [c]aused by collapse of the building or structure resulting directly from the weight of rain, snow, sleet, or ice. Id. (emphasis added). The risk of collapse is, of course, at its highest during the construction phase of a building projectand this is an all-risk builder's policy. Philadelphia does not argue that collapse was a risk beyond the reasonable contemplation of the policy. ¶ 37 Despite this, the Court of Appeals found no coverage under the ensuing loss clause, reasoning that [i]f faulty workmanship was the initial excluded peril, then the simultaneous collapse of the shoring and concrete slab was the loss. Had the collapse triggered a secondary covered peril, such as a fire, then damage caused by the fire would be covered as a resulting loss. Vision One, 158 Wash.App. at 108 n. 3, 241 P.3d 429. This analysis fails to consider that collapse is a covered peril under the policy. Many events can be characterized as both a loss and a peril. Characterizing collapse as the loss, rather than the peril, rests on a semantic distinction without a difference and ignores the policy's coverage for all risks, including those [c]aused by collapse of the building. CP at 5977. ¶ 38 Indeed, the situation here is no different than if the shoring had given way, scraped a wall as it fell, and sparked a fire. The faultily assembled shoring (excluded) would have caused a fire (covered), resulting in damage to the buildinga loss admittedly covered under the ensuing loss clause. In fact, Philadelphia's coverage expert acknowledged at trial that there is no meaningful difference between a fire loss and a collapse loss under the ensuing loss clause. VRP (Oct. 13, 2008) at 1242-43. We agree, and hold that the collapse damages are a covered ensuing loss under the policy.