By Michael S. Hale
Few coverage disputes illustrate the gap between policyholder expectations and policy language as starkly as claims involving alleged structural “collapse.” To the insured, a building that is cracking, sagging, condemned, or rendered unsafe by engineers has effectively collapsed. Under Michigan law, however, such conditions frequently fall outside coverage.
Michigan courts have adopted one of the narrowest interpretations of “collapse” in the country. Absent express policy language to the contrary, collapse is treated as an event, not a condition, requiring an actual falling down or caving in of the structure.
Read More