This article does not provide insight into why the exclusion for faulty construction was raised. It seems we could have been told if there was prior water damage the insured was aware of which had already been determined to be due to faulty construction, and therefore excluded, v hurrican damage which it seems was covered.
Insurer in CA use concurrent causation exclusions, and seem to make no attempt to apportion the loss based on the direct proximate cause. It seems like both the courts and insurers are
failing the public on this question.
I apologize for not including more facts. I was trying to be as succinct as a lawyer can be. Here is a link to the full order so you can assess the facts for yourself:
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
This article does not provide insight into why the exclusion for faulty construction was raised. It seems we could have been told if there was prior water damage the insured was aware of which had already been determined to be due to faulty construction, and therefore excluded, v hurrican damage which it seems was covered.
Insurer in CA use concurrent causation exclusions, and seem to make no attempt to apportion the loss based on the direct proximate cause. It seems like both the courts and insurers are
failing the public on this question.
MrInsBrokerSF:
I apologize for not including more facts. I was trying to be as succinct as a lawyer can be. Here is a link to the full order so you can assess the facts for yourself:
http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Pages_2013/September/September%2018,%202013/2D11-4063.pdf. Enjoy!