The complaint alleged collapse, but the claimed cause of the collapse was not a covered cause under the insured's policy, mandating a dismissal of the complaint. Coonce v. CSSA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25010 (10th Cir. Sept. 4, 2018). 

    The ceiling in the insured's living and dining areas caved in. An engineering survey determined that the nails used in the construction had failed to hold. The insured made a claim on her policy issued by CSAA. Coverage was denied and the insured sued. 

    The insured was given two opportunities to amend her complaint by the district court, but the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was eventually granted.

    The Tenth Circuit affirmed. The amended complaint failed to allege any facts to overcome the policy's exclusions and limitations of coverage. Collapse was not covered, except as provided the paragraph E 8 of the policy. The policy covered collapse only if it was caused by certain perils, such as hidden decay, insect or vermin damage, weight of contents, etc. Even assuming the cave-in was a collapse, the amended complaint did not allege that any of the listed causes were involved. Instead, the amended complaint alleged that the cause of the cave-in was because "the nails did not hold."

    Further, there were other applicable exclusions in the policy. CSAA argued that the exclusion for loss caused by "wear and tear, marring or deterioration" applied. Further "faulty, inadequate or defective" "design, specifications, workmanship, repair or construction" was excluded. The amended complaint did not contain any facts showing that these exclusions did not apply. Therefore, dismissal of the complaint was proper.