VISION ONE v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that coverage existed where faulty workmanship, a covered peril, combined with an excluded peril as the efficient proximate cause of the loss
• recognizing “the possibility that an 22 insurer may draft policy language to deny coverage when an excluded peril initiates an unbroken 23 ORDER 24 - 11 1 causal chain”
• finding that the ensuing loss clause restored coverage to collapse damages because collapse is covered under the policy, despite the cause of the collapse being attributable to the faulty workmanship of the insured
• noting 5 that all-risk policies “provide coverage for all risks unless the specific risk is excluded” (citation 6 omitted)
• ensuing loss clauses “limit the 23 scope of what is otherwise excluded under the policy”
• stating an all-risk policy provides coverage for perils unless the peril is specifically excluded

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).