The partial collapse of an exterior brick veneer of an apartment building was found not to be covered under the apartment policy. Keyser v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81194 (W.D. Pa. May 14, 2019).

    Norene Keyser was insured by State Farm for a six-unit apartment building. The exterior brick veneer of the property's west-facing wall partially collapsed while a maintenance staff attempted remedial repairs. Keyser filed a claim and State Farm hired Jon Nedley, an engineer, to determine the cause of the loss, and a contractor, Dave Wahl, to estimate the cost to repair the damage.

    Wahl provided a preliminary estimate of $115,000 for the cost of repairs for the west wall. Wahl found that the collapse did not damage the north, south, and east facing exterior walls. Nedley concluded that the construction work performed by Keyser's maintenance men caused the west-facing brick veneer to collapse. State Farm concluded that the damage caused by the collapse was covered by the policy. Wahl later updated his repair estimate to $123,446. State Farm calculated the depreciation for the loss and determined that the actual cash value benefits were $40,107. State Farm eventually paid $108,747 in covered benefits and Keyser remained eligible for an additional $87,052 in benefits if repairs were made to the property.

    Keyser sued, claiming she was owed coverage for the damage to the north, south and east-facing brick veneer. State Farm argued there was no evidence that the collapse to the west-facing brick veneer caused damage to the north, south, and east-facing veneer. State Farm moved for summary judgment. Even Keyser's expert admitted that he could not casually relate the damage to the north, sough, and east-facing brick veneer to the collapse of the west-facing brick veneer. Without such proof, Keyser could not support that the policy required coverage for any damage to the north, south and east-facing brick veneer.

    Keyser also claimed that if only the west facing brick veneer was replaced, it would not match or conform to the other sides of the property. State Farm argued that Keyser had not met her burden that replacement of the west-facing brick veneer would not be with a material of "like kind or quality" as required under the policy. There was no evidence to support Keyser's argument on the feasibility of matching brick. Further, Keyser failed to identify any masons or contractors who could offer testimony on her behalf that the north, south, and east-facing walls needed to be demolished and replaced in order to preserve a matching veneer. Therefore, Keyser had not met her burden that the replacement of the west-facing veneer could not be accomplished with material of "like kind or quality." Thus, Keyser's breach of contract claim that the north, south and east-facing brick veneer needed to be replaced to match the west-facing brick veneer did not present a question for the jury. 

    Accordingly, State Farm's motion for summary judgment was granted and the claim was dismissed.