The court determined the vandalism exclusion barred coverage and that the ensuing loss provision was not applicable. See New London County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Zachem, 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 850 (Conn. Super. Ct. March 29, 2012).

   A fire caused by an explosion occurred at the insured's property on September 11, 2008. The fire inspector determined that a propane copper pipe was broken by an intruder, causing a gas explosion. The fire inspector's report concluded that the fire and explosion were a direct result from the intentional act of removing the copper propane lines. No one was living on the property. Instead, the insured did remodeling and maintenance work on the property and stored equipment and materials there.

   The insured sought coverage under its property policy with New London. The policy insured against risk of direct loss to property, but excluded loss caused by vandalism and malicious mischief if the dwelling was vacant for more than 30 consecutive days immediately before the loss. The policy further provided, however, any ensuing loss to property described in the policy not excluded or excepted was covered.

   The court first considered the vandalism exclusion. The insured argued the term "vacant" was void and that he had made periodic visits to the property. But no one had lived on the property since July 2007 and the dwelling did not contain any items suitable for habitation. Therefore, the vandalism exclusion applied.

   The insured argued the loss resulted from an explosion caused by a spark from a water heater which could not have been expected, and the ignition was an intervening cause that caused damage to the home, not the removal of the copper pipes. Therefore, the insured argued, the loss was ensuing. The court disagreed. Here the spark that set the explosion did not constitute a separate and independent hazard from which the insured's loss ensued. Therefore, the ensuing loss provision did not apply.