The collapse of shoring equipment raised the issue of whether loss of the concrete slab it supported was covered as a resulting loss.  The court answered no in Vision One, LLC v. Philadelphia Indemn. Ins. Co., 2010 Wash. App. LEXIS 2322 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2010).

   A structural engineer examined the shoring design drawings and concluded that the design was adequate for supporting the poured concrete, but the design was marginal and did not allow for any inadequacies in the shoring installation. 

   The insured's policy excluded loss caused by defective design and by faulty workmanship.  But the exclusion provided coverage for resulting losses: "[I]f loss by any of the Covered Causes of Loss results, we will pay for that resulting loss."  The insurer denied coverage, explaining the only cause of loss was the defective design and faulty workmanship.  There was no separate and independent loss that resulted in the claimed damage.  Therefore, the "resulting loss" provision did not apply.

   The trial court ruled that because the shoring equipment and concrete slab were "separate and distinct," the concrete collapse was covered under the resulting loss provision.  The trial court further ruled that if one cause of loss was covered, then all loss was covered.

   The Court of Appeals reversed.  The court first noted that the term "cause" in the exclusion meant the "efficient proximate cause" of the loss.  The efficient proximate cause was the predominate cause which set into motion the chain of events producing the loss.  Whenever covered and excluded perils combined to cause a loss, it would be covered only if the predominant or efficient proximate cause was a covered peril.

   Here, the cause of the shoring and concrete slab collapse remained in dispute.  The parties argued that multiple perils, some covered and some excluded, caused the collapse.  The resulting loss provision applied only if faulty workmanship caused the collapse.  Thus, when the trial court ruled that the collapse was covered under the resulting loss provision, it essentially ruled that the collapse was caused by faulty workmanship.  The cause of the collapse, however, was a question of fact for the jury.

   Accordingly, the trial court's resulting loss ruling was reversed and remanded for a jury to determine which of the alleged causes – faulty workmanship, defective design, and/or faulty equipment – caused the collapse. If the jury found that multiple causes contributed to the collapse, then it had to determine which cause was the predominant or efficient proximate cause.

   The court then considered whether the concrete slab's collapse was a resulting loss under the faulty workmanship resulting loss provision.  The provision applied when an excluded peril caused a separate and independent covered peril.  The court referred to an example from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which caused gas-fed fires creating even more damage across the city.  Most property insurance policies excluded earthquake damage but covered fire damage.  Because an excluded peril (earthquake) caused an independent covered peril (fire), the resulting fire damage was covered as a "resulting loss."  But the earthquake damage remained uncovered.

   Here, assuming faulty workmanship caused the shoring and concrete slab to collapse, faulty workmanship was the initial excluded peril and the collapse was the loss. There was no independent covered peril (such as fire) that caused a covered resulting loss.  The collapse resulted directly from the initial excluded peril of faulty workmanship, and loss resulting directly from the initial excluded peril remained uncovered.

   Accordingly, the concrete slab collapse did not qualify as a resulting loss.  Even if a jury determined that faulty workmanship caused the collapse, the resulting loss exception did not apply.  The case was nevertheless remanded for a jury to determine causation because the insured argued that faulty equipment, a covered peril, contributed to the collapse.