Opinion ID: 1179456
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: collapse.

Text: Whispering Creek argues that the abatement notice posted on the condominium by the BSD rendered the condominium uninhabitable and that [t]his action by the Municipality constituted a constructive collapse caused by hidden decay. Alaska National asserts that there was no total or partial collapse of the condominium. To resolve this dispute we must interpret the collapse provision of the insurance policy [2] as it relates to a building that has not fallen to the ground. While this is a question of first impression in Alaska, it was apparently first addressed in other jurisdictions beginning in 1959. In Travelers Fire Insurance Co. v. Whaley, 272 F.2d 288 (10th Cir.1959), there was no claim that the building or any part thereof, collapsed in the sense that it tumbled down or fell in a heap. Id. at 289. Nevertheless, the court found that the house involved was covered under the collapse provision of the insurance policy because the substantial integrity of the building had been impaired to such an extent as to render it subject to the inclemency of the weather and rendering its contents more easily subject to the elements. Id. In rendering this construction, the court explicitly rejected a narrow abstract construction of the word collapse, id. at 290, stating that, [i]f the appellant intended that the word `collapse' should be ascribed the abstract dictionary definition it now contends for, it should have so stated. Id. In Jenkins v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 185 Kan. 665, 347 P.2d 417, 420 (1959), the court noted that the damage in the home involved created an unsafe and dangerous situation with a possibility of its caving or falling in. It then held that settling, falling, cracking, bulging or breaking of the insured building, or any part thereof, in such a manner as to materially impair the basic structure or substantial integrity of the building would be regarded as a `collapse' of the building for policy purposes. Id. at 422-43. In Thornewell v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co., 33 Wis.2d 344, 147 N.W.2d 317, 320 (1967), the court stated: If 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 disintegration, then it can be said to be in a state of collapse within the meaning of the extended coverage of the policy. (Emphasis added). More recently, a Florida appellate court construed the collapse provision of an insurance policy to afford coverage because it was undisputed that the concrete blocks in a motel wall had separated, with the wall bulging outward and away from the concrete slab floor, and the building was in imminent danger of falling further. Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Allen, 362 So.2d 176 (Fla.App. 1978). Finally, a Colorado court extended coverage under the collapse provision of an insurance policy to a home in which the ridge of the roof had fallen a few feet, causing the City and County of Denver to require that the plaintiffs vacate the house. Sherman v. Safeco Ins. Co., 716 P.2d 475 (Colo. App. 1986). There is no dispute that the roof of the Whispering Creek Complex was dangerous and in immediate danger of complete collapse. On February 13, 1986 the operations manager for the BSD sent a certified letter to one of the condominium owners notifying her of the existence of major deficiencies which are considered to be Life Safety [sic] and must be corrected. This letter enclosed the BSD report regarding her condominium. The report stated: [T]he roof ceiling joist ... can collapse causing serious injuries to the occupants. On February 18, 1986 the BSD posted a warning notice on the building declaring it to be in a dangerous condition that constituted a life hazard and a public nuisance. [3] The notice gave the condominium owners until March 20, 1986, to correct and alter the dangerous condition of the building. Failure to comply with the notice and order is a misdemeanor and failure to commence the work compelled to be done by the order will justify the BSD to cause the building ... to be vacated. [4] Whispering Creek condominium owners did not appeal [5] the BSD order and notice and therefore occupants had no practical alternative but to comply. Finally, in a letter addressed to Whispering Creek's attorney dated April 1, 1986 Alaska National stated that the condominium structure has been weakened considerably because of the rotting of the support beams in the ceiling and may well be in danger of collapsing if the snow load builds up or if a melting period occurs where the water can collect at a low spot. In view of the undisputed evidence that the Whispering Creek complex was in a life-threatening condition and in imminent danger of collapse, we conclude that the damage producing this less than total collapse is covered under the collapse provision of the policy. Having determined that the Whispering Creek complex has sustained a collapse for insurance policy purposes, coverage under the Alaska National policy is not yet assured. The Alaska National policy conditions coverage for collapse upon causation of the collapse by hidden decay, but excludes coverage for damage caused by wet or dry rot.