The court denied cross motions for summary judgment, deciding there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the applicability of both the exclusion for vandalism and the ensuing loss provision.  See New London County Ins. Co. v. Zachem, 2011 Conn. Super. LEXIS 381 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 18, 2011).

   Vandals broke into the insureds' home.  Although no one lived at the property, the insureds made daily trips there, stored equipment on the property, and did repair and maintenance work on the property.  The vandals removed a copper gas pipe, from which propane gas leaked, which was ignited.

   The insureds' policy excluded loss caused by "vandalism and malicious mischief, theft or attempted theft if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss."  However, "any ensuing loss . . . not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered." 

   The insureds submitted a claim.  New London denied coverage because the house had been "vacant" for more than 30 days prior to the loss.  Further, the ensuing loss provision did not apply because the explosion was intentional and was not only a foreseeable consequence, but the result the vandals desired.

   The insureds sued and cross motions for summary judgment were filed.  New London's motion was denied because the word "vacant" in the exclusion was susceptible to more than one meaning, making it ambiguous.  The insureds' argument that the property was not "vacant" because they visited the house and kept some items there was reasonable.  Nevertheless, the extent of the insureds' presence during the 30 day period prior to the loss was unclear.  Accordingly, the insureds' cross motion on the applicability of the exclusion was also denied.

   A genuine issue of fact also existed regarding the ensuing loss provision.  The parties agreed that vandals removed a gas pipe that allowed propane gas to leak into the house, which ignited, causing the explosion that created the loss.  A genuine issue of fact existed, however, regarding what caused the propane to ignite, depriving the insureds of summary judgment on this issue as well.