In another of a series of collapse cases arising out of Connecticut, the federal district court found there was no coverage for the homeowner's cracked basement wall caused by defective concrete. Liston-Smith v. CSAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206211 (D. Conn. Dec. 15, 2017).

    The plaintiffs had lived in their home since 1996. In 2014, they noticed cracks in the basement wall. In 2015, an engineer was hired to inspect the foundation of their home. The engineer found that a defect in the concrete, caused by a chemical reaction, was creating cracks in the wall. Further, the cracks would continue to grow until the structure became unstable. He recommended that the concrete foundation be replaced.

    Plaintiffs submitted a claim to CSAA Fire and Casualty Insurance Company for damages the chemical reaction had caused to the foundation. CSAA denied the claim under homeowners' policy. The policy insured against "risk of direct physical loss to property." Collapse was only covered for "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building. . ." The policy further provided that a building or any part of a building that was in danger of falling down or caving in was not considered to be in a state of collapse. 

    The plaintiffs filed suit. CSAA moved for summary judgment. 

    CSAA first argued there was no genuine dispute of material fact that the plaintiffs' home had not collapsed. Plaintiffs argued that the definition of collapse was ambiguous and that coverage extended to "substantial impairment of the structural integrity of the building." The court disagreed. Plaintiffs' own expert stated that the wall had not abruptly fallen down or caved in, as required by the policy. Rather, he determined that the walls were deteriorating as a result of a progressive condition, remained upright, and the home was still inhabitable for its intended purpose.

    Plaintiffs also argued that the chemical reaction itself was a loss that should be covered under the policy. Further, the use of the term "risk" in the policy included not only the chemical reaction occurring in the concrete, but risks associated with the chemical reaction, such as collapse. But a chemical reaction did not constitute a "direct physical loss" under the policy. The chemical reaction was a process that could cause tangible, physical property damage; it did not qualify as a compensable loss in and of itself. 

    Therefore, CSAA's summary judgment motion was granted.