Publications

Declining to abrogate state precedent, the Supreme Court of Kentucky reiterated that for insurance coverage purposes, “collapse” must be given its literal interpretation, which requires falling down or breaking down into pieces.  Thiele v. Kentucky Growers Ins. Co., 2017 WL 2598494 (Ky. June 15, 2017).

A homeowner sought coverage for termite damage under a policy provision covering “collapse.”  The insurer denied coverage on the basis that no actual collapse had occurred.  The homeowner sought a declaration of coverage, which a Kentucky trial court granted.  An intermediate appellate court reversed, and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed.

The Kentucky Supreme Court expressly declined to adopt “the more lenient majority rule” under which a structure need not actually collapse or be in imminent danger of collapsing, so long as the damage “substantially impairs” the structural integrity of the building.  Instead, the court adhered to the plain meaning of “collapse,” finding that it requires a structure to fall down, break or cave in order to invoke coverage under the collapse provision.