Stamm Theatres, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding “decay” ambiguous, thereby construing in favor of coverage, such that coverage for collapse due to “hidden decay” included collapse caused by a “concealed process of gradual loss in the strength of building materials”
• noting the theater was nearly fifty years old and reversing the trial court’s summary judgment finding for the insurance carrier
• finding wear and tear exclusion did not imply restriction on coverage for collapse caused by hidden decay, and stating, “Obviously, [Defendant’s] collapse coverage was not meant to be limited by the generally applicable policy exclusions.”
• “It is difficult indeed to imagine a building collapsing without any of these symptoms [settling, cracking, shrinkage, bulging or expansion] appearing.^
• “Obviously, [the insurer’s] collapse coverage was not meant to be limited by the generally applicable policy exclusions.”
• “We must also interpret these terms ‘in context’ 7 [citation], and give effect ‘to every part’ of the policy with ‘each clause helping to 8 interpret the other.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).