The court considered whether rain damage to a house was barred by the policy's mold exclusion. Stewart v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist LEXIS 127804 (D. S.D. Sept. 7, 2012).

   The insureds hired DJ Construction to build a new home. Before construction was completed, it was discovered that DJ Construction

   After the insurer denied coverage in a homeowner's policy for construction defects under various exclusions, the court found the ensuing loss provision was ambiguous. Kesling v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38857 (D. Colo. March 22, 2012).

   After purchasing a home from the sellers, the insureds noticed problems with the

   A self-insured retention provision that excused the insurer from providing excess coverage if the insured was bankrupt and unable to meet the SIR violated public policy in Rhode Island. Rosciti v. The Ins. Co. of the State of Pennsylvania, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20400 (1st Cir. Oct. 7, 2011).

   The Roscitis purchased

   The court determined there was no coverage for water intrusion based upon a comprehensive Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) Exclusion. Nat'l Am. Ins. Co. v. Gerlicher Co., LLC, 2011 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 79 (Okla. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2011).

   Gerlicher purchased a commercial building constructed by general contractor Pinion Construction

   Although the insurer contended the Texas Supreme Court had previously decided that mold was never covered under a homeowner's policy, the Court found coverage for mold damage to personal property in State Farm Lloyds v. Page, 2010 Tex. LEXIS 415 (Tex. June 22, 2010).

   The insured discovered mold and water damage to

   In Builders' Mutual Ins. Co. v. Glascarr Prop., Inc., No. COA09-486, 2010 N.C. App. LEXIS 186, (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2010), the court found no coverage for loss caused by mold because of the anti-concurrent causation clause.  Whether reliance on the anti-concurrent causation clause was correct is difficult to determine from the facts

     A property policy's limitation on mold coverage was challenged in MMI Reality Serv., Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.,Civ . No. 07-00466, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93653 (D. Haw.  Nov. 17, 2008).

     Kahala Mall in Honolulu suffered flood damage after the severe rains of March 2006.  The Mall was insured by Westchester