As assessment by a condominium association against owners of a second floor condominium unit for repairs made necessary by "collapse" of common elements was held, by a trial court, covered under their condominium unit-owners policy. The insurer filed a motion for post-trial relief, principally on the grounds that "collapse" within the scope of policy coverage did not occur. (Assessments are paid under such insurance only for damage caused by covered perils.) The insureds filed a cross-motion for modification of the judgment to include pre-verdict interest.

Approximately three years after purchase of their policy, the insureds were assessed $14,000 by the association for repairs necessitated by "collapse" of ground floor slabs, electrical lines buried beneath the slabs, and utility pipes underneath. (Owners of the first floor unit were similarly assessed.) The insureds paid the assessment when the insurer denied the claim and, thereupon, sued the insurer for reimbursement of the assessment up to the $10,000 policy limit for assessment coverage.

The insureds and witnesses testified as to damage to a caved in floor and damaged and exposed utility pipes in the first floor unit, with loss of their service to both units, and cracked walls within the upper and lower units.

The court took note of several earlier cases in point cited by the insurer in which cracks in ceilings, doors, floors and walls were held not covered because of specific exclusions for "collapse" due to settling and subsidence. It found some ambiguity "as to exactly whether the circumstances in the matter presently under review, constitute a collapse." It said that proof of the applicability of an exclusion must be established by an insurer, and that ambiguity must be resolved in the favor of insureds.

In light of the testimony and various definitions of "collapse" presented at trial, the finding of the trial court that there had been a covered partial collapse was found reasonable. All motions for post-trial relief were denied, that sought by the insured for pre-verdict interest because it was not certain, at the time the insured denied liability, that a covered "collapse" had occurred.

(ZIELINSKI ET UX., Plaintiffs, v. PENN MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County. No. 4546. September 10, 1991. CCH 1992 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 3597.)