They investigated the “pattern cracking” condition and determined that, because of defective concrete, it was “only a question of time” until their basement walls would fall in from exterior soil pressure.

They alleged that although the process of decay occurred over the course of years, it might cause “sudden events throughout the course of decay,” such as events where the walls bulged and shifted in some increment or pieces of concrete became dislodged and fell to the floor.

The Huschles sued their home's insurers, Allstate Insurance Company and Teachers Insurance Company, alleging that they failed to pay for damage to their home's basement walls caused by cracking and deteriorating concrete. The Huschles alleged that this constituted a breach of the policies and also that Teachers violated the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (“CUIPA”) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”).

Allstate and Teachers moved to dismiss.

The District Court's Decision

The district court granted the insurers' motions.

In its decision, the district court first dismissed the Huschles' claims that Allstate had improperly denied their claim for basement cracking.

The district court disagreed with the Huschles' contention that the Allstate policy could reasonably be interpreted to apply to the cracking in their home. The district court noted that the Allstate policy covered some collapses, that the term “collapse” was not defined in the policy, and that the term “collapse” could include any substantial impairment to a building's structural integrity.

However, the district court pointed out, the Allstate policy limited itself to only cover “sudden and accidental” collapses. The Huschles' allegations – about a “process of oxidization” in their foundation's concrete that began when the concrete aggregate was mixed in the 1990s, and a subsequent “process of decay” that “occurs over the course of years” – was not “a temporally abrupt event,” according to the district court.

The loss, the district court said, “must be sudden and accidental” and the Huschles had not alleged that such a sudden collapse had yet occurred.

The district court then dismissed the Huschles' claims against Teachers.

The district court explained that an all-risk policy from Teachers excluded losses “caused by . . . cracking” or losses “which result[] from” defective construction materials, and declared that a crumbling foundation was not covered because of the cracking exclusion.

It added that even assuming that the cracking exclusion did not apply, there still was no coverage because the Huschles alleged that those cracks resulted from the use of defective concrete – which the policy also excluded.

The district court next ruled that there was no coverage of the Huschles' claim under another Teachers' policy, which defined collapse to be an “abrupt” occurrence. The district court found that the word “abrupt” contemplated a “temporally distinct and sudden change in a building's condition,” which the Huschles had not alleged.

Finally, the district court rejected the Huschles' CUIPA and CUTPA claims against Teachers, concluding that they could not stand because Teachers had properly denied the Huschles' claim.

The case is Huschle v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 3:18-cv-00248 (JAM) (D. Conn. March 29, 2019). Attorneys involved include: For Frank V. Huschle, Cynthia M. Huschle, Plaintiffs: Jeffrey R Lindequist, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Office of Michael D. Parker, Springfield, MA; Lindsay Britton, Springfield, MA. For Allstate Insurance Company, Teachers Insurance Co, Defendants: Jessica A.R. Hamilton, LEAD ATTORNEY, Robinson & Cole, LLP-HTFD, Hartford, CT; Raymond T. Demeo, LEAD ATTORNEY, Robinson & Cole, Hartford, CT. For 21st Century Premier Insurance Co., formerly known as AIG Insurance Company, Defendant: Robert J. Sickinger, Murphy & Karpie, Bridgeport, CT.

Learn more:

Homeowners May Not Add Bad Faith Claim to Punish Insurer for Removing 'Faulty Concrete' Case to Federal Court

Connecticut Reaches Agreement with Two Insurers to Provide Supplemental Assistance to Crumbling Foundation Homeowners

Travelers Establishes Program to Help Connecticut Customers Address Crumbling Foundations

Connecticut Homeowners' Insurance Policy Did Not Cover Concrete Cracking Allegedly Due to “Chemical Reaction”

Yet Again, an Insurer Defeats Connecticut Homeowners in a Concrete “Collapse” Case

2d Circuit Rejects Insurance Coverage in Connecticut Concrete Cracking Collapse Case

Another Reason Connecticut Homeowners May Lose “Crumbling Foundation” Insurance Coverage Cases

Another Court Rejects Connecticut Homeowners' “Crumbling Foundation” Insurance Claim

Tens of Thousands of Residents Could Be Affected by Connecticut Supreme Court's Insurance Coverage Ruling in “Concrete” Case

Finding “Plausible Claim for Coverage,” Connecticut District Court Refuses to Dismiss Homeowners' Suit Over Damage to Their Basement Walls

Insureds May Continue Suit against Insurer Over Its Denial of Their Claim Stemming from Their Deteriorating Basement Walls

Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Bad Faith and Unfair Practices Claims Where Insureds Alleged “Industry-Wide Practice,” Citing ISO, of Denying “Concrete Decay” Claims

Connecticut Senators Introduce Bill to Provide $100 Million in Direct FEMA Aid to Property Owners with Crumbling Foundations

Connecticut Insurance Department Reports Data on Homeowner Foundation-Related Claims