Do these exclusions pertain to this situation?

New York Subscriber

A

Exclusion 3. contains the “concurrent causation” exclusions (see Q&A on Acts or Decisions) and, as the insurer points out, they eliminate coverage for faulty or defective design, repair, workmanship, materials, maintenance, etc. However, as is plainly clear from the lead-in language, if an excluded cause of loss results in a covered cause of loss, then coverage applies; e.g., coverage of a fire loss is not defeated by a worker's miscalculations in connecting a thermostat. In a policy covering risks of direct loss (open perils or all risk), discoloration may be an ensuing loss that is not otherwise excluded. If there is no specific exclusion of a peril under an open perils form, then any peril the insured can name is covered. The concurrent causation exclusions is inappropriately applied here, where the insured can claim loss by discoloration (an unexcluded peril) resulting from an excluded event listed in the concurrent causation exclusions section.

As to the latent defect exclusion, it may be legitimate grounds for the denial of coverage. However, it is not enough for the insurer to simply cite the exclusion; the insurer must prove the exclusion's applicability. It is an axiom of insurance contract interpretation that the insurer has the responsibility to prove the applicability of exclusionary clauses. The insurance company must demonstrate that a latent defect in the wall, paint, or wallpaper caused the discoloration. In other words, what happened? And was it latent defect that caused the damage? If so, the exclusion must be invoked. However, without more, the insured may be covered for this damage.