From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Travco Ins. Co. v. Ward

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jan 15, 2013
504 F. App'x 251 (4th Cir. 2013)

Summary

holding that sulfuric gas being released from drywall into the insured's property is a direct physical loss

Summary of this case from Fulfillment v. Colony Ins. Co.

Opinion

No. 10-1710

01-15-2013

TRAVCO INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY WARD, Defendant - Appellant. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, Amicus Supporting Appellant, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES; AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Amici Supporting Appellee.

ARGUED: Michael Francis Imprevento, BREIT DRESCHER IMPREVENTO & WALKER, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Edward Goldman, ROBINSON & COLE LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey A. Breit, John W. Drescher, BREIT DRESCHER IMPREVENTO & WALKER, PC, Norfolk, Virginia; Richard J. Serpe, LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD J. SERPE, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. John B. Mumford, Jr., Kathryn E. Kransdorf, HANCOCK, DANIEL, JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC, Glen Allen, Virginia; Wystan M. Ackerman, Daniel F. Sullivan, Jamie M. Landry, ROBINSON & COLE LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, for Appellee. David S. Jaffe, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, Washington, D.C., for National Association of Home Builders, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Thomas W. Curvin, Amy K. Averill, SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Steuart H. Thomsen, SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP, Washington, D.C., for National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, Amicus Supporting Appellee. Raoul G. Cantero, Michelle Holmes Johnson, WHITE & CASE LLP, Miami, Florida, for American Insurance Association, Amicus Supporting Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:10-cv-00014-RGD-TEM) Before SHEDD and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and Damon J. KEITH, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Michael Francis Imprevento, BREIT DRESCHER IMPREVENTO & WALKER, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Edward Goldman, ROBINSON & COLE LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey A. Breit, John W. Drescher, BREIT DRESCHER IMPREVENTO & WALKER, PC, Norfolk, Virginia; Richard J. Serpe, LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD J. SERPE, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. John B. Mumford, Jr., Kathryn E. Kransdorf, HANCOCK, DANIEL, JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC, Glen Allen, Virginia; Wystan M. Ackerman, Daniel F. Sullivan, Jamie M. Landry, ROBINSON & COLE LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, for Appellee. David S. Jaffe, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, Washington, D.C., for National Association of Home Builders, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Thomas W. Curvin, Amy K. Averill, SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Steuart H. Thomsen, SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP, Washington, D.C., for National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, Amicus Supporting Appellee. Raoul G. Cantero, Michelle Holmes Johnson, WHITE & CASE LLP, Miami, Florida, for American Insurance Association, Amicus Supporting Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Larry Ward appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Travco Insurance Company and declaring that he is not entitled to coverage under his homeowners insurance policy for alleged drywall-related damages to his home. The district court found that four provisions of the policy excluded coverage. Previously, we certified the following question of Virginia law to the Supreme Court of Virginia:

For purposes of interpreting an "all risk" homeowners insurance policy, is any damage resulting from this drywall unambiguously excluded from coverage under the policy because it is loss caused by:
(a) "mechanical breakdown, latent defect, inherent vice, or any quality in property that causes it to damage itself";
(b) "faulty, inadequate, or defective materials";
(c) "rust or other corrosion"; or
(d) "pollutants," where pollutant is defined as "any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste?"
Travco Ins. Co. v. Ward, 468 Fed. Appx. 195, 195-96 (4th Cir. 2012).

The Supreme Court of Virginia has now answered all subparts of the certified question in the affirmative. Travco Ins. Co. v. Ward, --- S.E.2d --- (Va. Nov. 1, 2012) (2012 WL 5358705). The parties agree, and we find, that the court's answers warrant affirmance of the judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED


Summaries of

Travco Ins. Co. v. Ward

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jan 15, 2013
504 F. App'x 251 (4th Cir. 2013)

holding that sulfuric gas being released from drywall into the insured's property is a direct physical loss

Summary of this case from Fulfillment v. Colony Ins. Co.

finding physical loss where property was uninhabitable due to toxic gas released by drywall, despite the fact that the drywall was not structurally damaged

Summary of this case from Promotional Headwear Int'l v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.

finding "direct physical loss" where "home was rendered uninhabitable by the toxic gases" released by defective drywall

Summary of this case from Gregory Packaging, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am.

noting that "physical damage to the property is not necessary, at least where the building in question has been rendered unusable by physical forces."

Summary of this case from Elegant Massage, LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

noting that "physical damage to the property is not necessary, at least where the building in question has been rendered unusable by physical forces"

Summary of this case from Diesel Barbershop, LLC v. State Farm Lloyds

declining to find the ensuing loss provision applicable because the relevant damage occurred gradually over a period of time and was merely a single discrete loss from a single discrete injury

Summary of this case from Taja Invs. LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co.

reasoning that to be an ensuing loss, the loss must occur subsequent in time to the initial excluded conduct, and that the loss cannot be excluded by any other provision in the policy

Summary of this case from Taja Invs. LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co.
Case details for

Travco Ins. Co. v. Ward

Case Details

Full title:TRAVCO INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY WARD, Defendant …

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jan 15, 2013

Citations

504 F. App'x 251 (4th Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

Tapestry, Inc. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co.

Tapestry also relies on a number of decisions, many unreported, from other jurisdictions involving other…

Taja Invs. LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co.

This court has required an additional, covered cause to trigger an ensuing loss provision with respect to…