Opinion ID: 1862141
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Collapse Coverage

Text: On original submission, the Slades argued that the trial court erred when it granted State Farm's preverdict motion for a JML on the issue of coverage for collapse. They contended that their policy provided coverage for losses involving collapse of a building or part of a building, caused by lightning. The Slades maintained that they produced substantial evidence indicating that the damage to their home is covered under the collapse provision of their policy. We noted that the Slades' policy states that [c]ollapse does not include settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion. We also recognized that this Court long ago determined that the term collapse is unambiguous and does not include settling or cracking in a home. See Central Mut. Ins. Co. v. Royal, supra, 269 Ala. at 373-75, 113 So.2d at 682-83. We quoted the rule that [w]hen the language of an insurance policy is clear and unambiguous it must be construed as it reads. Id., 269 Ala. at 375, 113 So.2d at 683. Accordingly, we held that the Slades did not produce any evidence of property damage other than the settling of their home and the cracking in the home, and held that the trial court properly granted State Farm's preverdict motion for a JML on the issue of collapse coverage. On rehearing, the Slades contend that we overlooked the case of Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Mitchell, 503 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.Civ.App.1987), in which the Court of Civil Appeals distinguished Royal and held that collapse coverage could cover damage to a home that had not actually fallen to a flattened form or rubble. However, Mitchell is distinguishable from the present case. In Mitchell, the plaintiff presented evidence indicating that parts of the insured home had actually collapsed, that the staircase had pulled apart from the walls, and that the floors of the home were no longer able to support the weight of people because of damage that had been caused by termites. 503 So.2d at 871. The Court of Civil Appeals found that Royal, supra, was factually distinguishable in that the plaintiff in Mitchell produced evidence indicating that the structural integrity of the building had been destroyed and that the home was not fit for human habitation (evidence the plaintiff in Royal did not produce). Id. [11] Thus, that court concluded that the evidence presented by the Mitchell plaintiff was sufficient to support the trial court's finding of coverage. Id. In the present case, the Slades point to no evidence indicating that any part of their home had actually fallen in, i.e., collapsed, or that the structural integrity of their home was so damaged that their home was unfit for human habitation. Therefore, we again hold that the damage to the Slades' home did not fit within the definition of the term collapse as it is used in their insurance policy. Also on rehearing, the Slades argue that their policy provides coverage for losses involving collapse of a building or part of a building caused by use of defective material or methods in construction, remodeling or renovation if the collapse occurs during the course of the construction, remodeling or renovation. They say that they presented substantial evidence indicating that the damage to their home was caused during the reconstruction of their retaining wall and the replacement of soil near their home. Nevertheless, such an argument still does not bring their loss into the definition of the term collapse. Moreover, the Slades presented no evidence indicating that the reconstruction proximately caused their loss. The only evidence of proximate cause that they have pointed to is testimony from State Farm's expert indicating that the reconstruction could have contributed to the Slades' loss. This testimony is not sufficient to create a question of fact under the more-probable-than-not or more-likely-than-not standard required for expert testimony. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. v. Credeur, 681 So.2d 1355, 1361 (Ala.1996). Therefore, we must reject the Slades' final argument, and we conclude that the trial court properly entered a preverdict JML for State Farm on the Slades' claim for collapse coverage.