BOZEK v. ERIE INSURANCE GROUP

2015 IL App (2d) 0155 (Ill. App., 2015)

Words & Phrases

Fire Insurance: Exclusions

Trial Judge

Thomas A. Meyer

Appellate Judge

Jorgensen

Holding

Anticoncurrent-causation clause operated to preclude coverage because two events, one covered under the policy (a failed pressure-relief valve) and one excluded under the policy (hydrostatic pressure), contributed to a single loss.

Fact Summary

Following cross-motions for summary judgment concerning coverage for damage to an in-ground swimming pool, the trial court granted judgment to defendant, Erie Insurance Group. The court found that, as a matter of law, the insurance policy’s anticoncurrent-causation clause operated to preclude coverage because two events, one covered under the policy (a failed pressure-relief valve) and one excluded under the policy (hydrostatic pressure), contributed to a single loss (the lifting of the pool out of the ground). The anticoncurrent-causation clause read: “We do not pay for loss resulting directly or indirectly from any of the following, even if other events or happenings contributed concurrently, or in sequence, to the loss.”

 

46 N.E.3d 362 (Ill. App. 2d dist. 2015)

Back