Court Opinion

ID: 9723075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:01:47.50984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:44.415473
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE REID, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part: While I concur in the result, I must respectfully dissent with regard to that portion of the majority opinion of the court that holds that the plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case that the loss was due to a fortuitous event because it was “expected.” The record does not support such a finding and the trial court did not so hold in its order that is appealed from. Therefore, there is no need for this court to only assume arguendo that plaintiff had established a prima facie case. That much is not in doubt. The burden clearly shifted to the insurance carrier to establish that the loss resulted from a peril expressly excluded from the pohcy. There was no dispute as to the fact that the roof collapsed due to “continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water that occurs over a period of 14 days” and “inadequate maintenance.” These are exclusions within the policy. However, this is not the end of the coverage dispute in this case. I do not agree that the plaintiff has waived its argument with respect to the ambiguity of the pohcy. The burden had shifted to the insurer to get out from under the coverage of this policy. If we were faced with the scenario that the roof collapse could have been caused by a hidden decay (a covered cause) and a lack of maintenance (an excluded cause), the plaintiff would be right that we would have to hold the ambiguity against the drafter and interpret the policy in favor of the insured. However, the insurer carried its burden based on what was before the trial court due to the fact that there is not one scintilla of evidence in this record of hidden decay as a cause of the roof collapse. It is for these reasons that I concur that the trial court’s summary judgment order should be affirmed.