{ "id": 8521473, "name": "ROY LYNN THOMASSON v. GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. JOHNNIE M. TILLEY, d/b/a JOHNNIE M. TILLEY PEST CONTROL SERVICE, COCKERHAM PEST CONTROL COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Thomasson v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance", "decision_date": "1991-07-16", "docket_number": "No. 9017SC1003", "first_page": "475", "last_page": "478", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "103 N.C. App. 475" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "390 S.E.2d 150", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "153", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5307211 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "392", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0387-01" ] }, { "cite": "503 So.2d 870", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 7591204 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/503/0870-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 ALR3d 1072", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1077" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "269 Ala. 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 5281562 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ala/269/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "514 S.W.2d 856", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10143243 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/514/0856-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 S.E.2d 766", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 N.C. App. 619", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8358935 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/87/0619-01" ] }, { "cite": "246 S.E.2d 773", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "777" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564714 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "506" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0500-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 455, "char_count": 7935, "ocr_confidence": 0.729, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.672284263807742e-07, "percentile": 0.9279210872911896 }, "sha256": "ba36eb298fbb2eaa86683e49634d5ee4d7dca2ce32b4e1dea13f1d5d9c75ee23", "simhash": "1:2123702274ab87c4", "word_count": 1284 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:13.805826+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge WELLS concur." ], "parties": [ "ROY LYNN THOMASSON v. GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. JOHNNIE M. TILLEY, d/b/a JOHNNIE M. TILLEY PEST CONTROL SERVICE, COCKERHAM PEST CONTROL COMPANY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nThe issue in this case is whether the term \u201ccollapse\u201d used in paragraph 8 on page 5 of the insurance policy is ambiguous and accordingly whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff contends that the term is ambiguous while, the defendant argues that \u201ccollapse\u201d is unambiguous and means \u201ca falling or reduction to a flattened form or rubble.\u201d On this record, we hold that the word \u201ccollapse\u201d is ambiguous. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court\u2019s order granting summary judgment for defendant.\nPlaintiff contends that the policy is ambiguous because it first purports to provide coverage for hidden decay and hidden insect and vermin damage and then attempts to require that the house fall in completely before coverage is available. As it applies to hidden insect or vermin damage, we agree that the term \u201ccollapse\u201d is ambiguous. We note that when construing an insurance policy \u201c[t]he various terms of the policy are to be harmoniously construed, and if possible, every word and every provision is to be given effect.\u201d Woods v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 295 N.C. 500, 506, 246 S.E.2d 773, 777 (1978). To require that the house fall in completely would make the provision of coverage for \u201chidden\u201d decay and damage illusory.\nDefendant contends that Baker v. Whitley, 87 N.C. App. 619, 361 S.E.2d 766 (1987), is factually analogous to this case and that there this Court \u201cadopted the definition of the word \u2018collapse\u2019 from the 1977 edition of Webster\u2019s New Collegiate Dictionary.\u201d We find defendant\u2019s reliance on Baker v. Whitley unpersuasive. In Baker an insured sued his insurance company under the collapse provisions of his insurance policy for damages that resulted when a kitchen cabinet became unhinged from the wall and the contents of the cabinet fell to the floor and broke. In the Baker opinion this Court noted that the defendant cited definitions of the term \u201ccollapse\u201d from other jurisdictions and several dictionary definitions of \u201ccollapse\u201d including the definition from Webster\u2019s New Collegiate Dictionary (1977). The Baker court did not adopt a definition of \u201ccollapse.\u201d It held only that the evidence presented did not satisfy any definition of \u201ccollapse\u201d and that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\nHere, defendant cites two cases from other jurisdictions that have held that the term \u201ccollapse\u201d in an insurance policy was unambiguous and that the term meant \u201ca falling or reduction to a flattened form or rubble.\u201d Williams v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 514 S.W.2d 856 (Mo. App. 1974); Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. Royal, 269 Ala. 372, 113 So.2d 680 (1959). However, our research disclosed that\ncourts have taken divergent views as to the meaning of \u201ccollapse.\u201d\nThus some courts have adopted the view that as used in a provision of this type, the term \u201ccollapse\u201d is unambiguous in denoting a falling in, loss of shape, or reduction to flattened form or rubble. ... On the other hand, even where so qualified by exclusion, some courts have taken the more liberal view that the term \u201ccollapse\u201d encompasses more than a reduction to rubble and includes conditions which materially impair the basic structure or substantial integrity of the insured building or a part thereof.\nAnnotation, Insurance Coverage \u2014 \u201cCollapse\u201d of Building, 71 ALR3d 1072, 1077 (1976). Additionally, this Court in Baker v. Whitley, 87 N.C. App. 619, 361 S.E.2d 766 (1987), noted that two views had developed in other jurisdictions and that no previous North Carolina case has defined the term \u201ccollapse.\u201d\nIn Fidelity and Casualty Co. v. Mitchell, 503 So.2d 870 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987), the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals decided a case that is factually virtually identical to the instant case. There the insureds tried to collect for termite damage under a provision in their insurance policy that is identical to the language at issue here. The court held that evidence that a stairway had fallen eight inches from the surrounding walls and that the floor had fallen eight inches toward the middle of the house constituted a collapse within the meaning of the insurance policy. Additionally, the Mitchell court distinguished Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. Royal, 269 Ala. 372, 113 So.2d 680 (1959), on which defendant relies. The Mitchell court noted that in Royal \u201cthere were cracks in the walls and cracks in the concrete footings, but there was no collapse of the building or any part thereof.\u201d The Mitchell court went on to say that \u201c[w]hile this insect damage did not reduce the house to flattened form or rubble, it nevertheless constituted a sufficient and actual collapse of some parts of the house, thereby destroying the structural integrity of the building.\u201d\nThe Supreme Court has said, \u201cAny ambiguity in the policy language must be resolved against the insurance company and in favor of the insured. A difference of judicial opinion regarding proper construction of policy language is some evidence calling for application of this rule.\u201d Brown v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 326 N.C. 387, 392, 390 S.E.2d 150, 153 (1990) (citations omitted). We think that the fact that courts in various jurisdictions have not agreed on what constitutes a collapse is some evidence that the term is ambiguous.\nFor the reasons stated, the order of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nChief Judge HEDRICK and Judge WELLS concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "EAGLES, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Franklin Smith for plaintiff-appellant.", "Everett & Everett, by James A. Everett, for defendant-appellee Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ROY LYNN THOMASSON v. GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. JOHNNIE M. TILLEY, d/b/a JOHNNIE M. TILLEY PEST CONTROL SERVICE, COCKERHAM PEST CONTROL COMPANY\nNo. 9017SC1003\n(Filed 16 July 1991)\nInsurance \u00a7 143 (NCI3d) \u2014 homeowners insurance \u2014 collapse provision \u2014 termite damage\nThe term \u201ccollapse\u201d in a homeowners insurance policy was ambiguous as applied to \u201chidden insect and vermin damage\u201d and did not require a falling or reduction to a flattened form or rubble. Therefore, plaintiff\u2019s forecast of evidence that some of the floors of his house have sagged from one to two inches because of termite damage was sufficient to present a material issue of fact for the jury in an action to recover under the collapse provision of the policy.\nAm Jur 2d, Insurance \u00a7 515.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from order entered 17 July 1990 by Judge W. Douglas Albright in SURRY County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 April 1991.\nThis case concerns interpretation of a homeowners insurance policy. Plaintiff purchased a homeowners insurance policy from Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company to c\u00b0over a residence he owns and occupies in Elkin. Plaintiff contends that termites have substantially damaged the house\u2019s superstructure. Evidence indicates that some of the floors in the house have sagged from one to two inches because of the termite damage. Plaintiff filed a claim with Grain Dealers Mutual which contends that it is not obligated to pay under the policy. At issue is the following provision:\n8. Collapse. We insure for direct physical loss to covered property involving collapse of a building or any part of a building caused only by one or more of the following:\na. Perils Insured Against in Coverage C \u2014 Personal Property. These perils apply to covered building and personal property for loss insured by this additional coverage;\nb. hidden decay;\nc. hidden insect or vermin damage;\nd. weight of contents, equipment, animals or people;\ne. weight of rain which collects on a roof; or\nf. use of defective material or methods in construction, remodeling or renovation if the collapse occurs during the course of the construction, remodeling or renovation.\nCollapse does not include settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion.\nThe trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.\nFranklin Smith for plaintiff-appellant.\nEverett & Everett, by James A. Everett, for defendant-appellee Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company." }, "file_name": "0475-01", "first_page_order": 505, "last_page_order": 508 }