Opinion ID: 895236
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Mold Damage to the Dwelling

Text: In Balandran, we held that the exclusion repeal provision was ambiguous with respect to exclusion 1.h because the exclusion for foundation damage was specifically limited to Coverage A. In other words, because the losses excluded under 1.hlosses caused by settling, cracking, bulging, shrinkage, or expansion of foundations, walls, floors, ceilings, roof structures, walks, drives, curbs, fences, retaining walls or swimming poolsapplied only to the dwelling under Coverage A, to hold that repeal of the 1.h exclusion only applied to personal property under Coverage B would make no sense. Balandran, 972 S.W.2d at 741. That is not the case with the 1.f mold exclusion, because the exclusion's plain language stating that it applies to property loss under Coverage A (Dwelling) and Coverage B (Personal Property) can be given full effect. To hold that the exclusion repeal provision reinstates coverage for mold damage under both Coverage A and Coverage B would render the mold exclusion entirely nugatory. On the other hand, limiting the 1.f repeal provision to coverage B where it appears in the policy does not render the repeal provision wholly inoperative as it did in Balandran. Our interpretation of Page's policy comports with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' reasoning in Carrizales v. State Farm Lloyds, 518 F.3d at 348. There, the Carrizaleses sued State Farm contending their homeowners' policythe same policy at issue hereprovided coverage for mold contamination in their garage caused by plumbing leaks. Id. at 344. Making an Erie -guess about how we would decide the question now before us, id. at 345 (citing Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); Mayo v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 354 F.3d 400, 406 (5th Cir.2004)), the Fifth Circuit concluded that the interaction between the mold exclusion provision and the exclusion repeal provision under Coverage B did not create an ambiguity. Id. at 346. Although the repeal provision is located in the section of the policy that deals with plumbing leaks, the court said, it does not follow that every exclusion is repealed with respect to plumbing leaks. Id. at 348. Looking at each policy provision and determining its effect in light of the repeal provision, the court concluded: we cannot envision the role the mold exclusion would play if Coverage A (implicitly) as well as Coverage B (explicitly) covered mold damage resulting from plumbing leaks. Id. Neither can we. There is no reason apparent from the policy language that would indicate the exclusion repeal provision applies to the mold exclusion under Coverage A; to construe the repeal provision to reinstate mold coverage for Page's dwelling would wholly ignore the structure of the policy. See id. at 352 (Reavley, J., concurring).