The issue in this case was whether a building collapsed from wind or hail, which were covered perils, or from the weight of snow and ice, an excluded peril. (The insureds had elected not to pay the additional premium required for coverage of the latter peril.) The insurer denied coverage on the grounds that coverage for windstorm or hail, the perils under which claim was made, were subject to specific exclusion of loss "caused directly or indirectly by . . . .ice (other than hail), snow or sleet, all whether wind-driven or not."

The insureds brought an action to recover benefits under the policy. A federal district court dismissed their complaint when the jury returned a verdict for the insurer. The insureds appealed.

An expert witness for the insurer, a university meteorologist, testified that 3 1/4 inches of water fell in the form of freezing rain and snow during the three day storm, and that the weight on the roof of the structure that collapsed was enormous. He also testified that there was no hail during the storm, and was of the opinion that the wind itself was not strong enough to blow the structure over.

Counsel for the insureds relied upon Southall v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, 632 S.W.2d 420, 422 (Ark. 1982), which held that the jury should have been instructed "that the word 'hail' as used in the policy included sleet." They said that the district court erred in excluding their request for a similar instruction to the jury prior to its verdict in the matter at hand.

The appeal court distinguished between the coverage provided by the policy pertinent to the case cited and the one under review here. The insureds in this case carried a policy that expressly excluded loss from "snow or sleet." The other did not.

The appeal court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing the insureds' complaint in accordance with the jury verdict. The pertinent exclusion acted to bar coverage for the loss that occurred.

(BARTON ET AL., Appellants v. COLUMBIA MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee v. MOORE ET AL. United States Court of Appeal for the Eighth Circuit. No. 90-2096. April 18, 1991. CCH 1991 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 3133.)