A federal judge has asked the Connecticut Supreme Court for a better definition of the word “collapse” that could help decide whether homeowner insurance policies should cover repairs to thousands of homes with crumbling foundations caused by defective concrete.
The Connecticut Law Tribune reports U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill asked for the opinion last week as part of one of many lawsuits against insurance companies for failing to cover the damage.
An estimated 30,000 or more homes and condominiums in eastern and central Connecticut could have failing foundations because of a mineral that causes concrete to crack and crumble.
Insurers say policies would only cover fixing foundations if homes collapse. Lawyers for homeowners argue that a 1987 state Supreme Court ruling said “collapse” also can mean impairment in structural integrity.
Related:
- Connecticut Lawmakers Create ‘Insurance Company’ to Help Homeowners
- Federal Officials Study Connecticut Crumbling Foundations
- Connecticut Insurers: Homes Must Fall Down to be Eligible for Coverage
- Connecticut Lawmakers Urged to Help Crumbling Foundation Homeowners
- Connecticut AG Says 4 Insurers Agree to Financing Fix for Crumbling Concrete Foundations
- Conn. Warns Insurers Not to Terminate Home Policies Over Foundation Problems
- Bonding Awarded to Launch Crumbling Foundations Entity in Connecticut
- Connecticut Homeowners Ask Legislature for Assistance on Bad Foundations
Topics Connecticut
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
Florida Man Faked Brain Injury for Years in Attempt to Gain $6M in Insurance 
The Luxury Life of British Expats in Dubai Faces a Reality Check 
Jury Finds New Orleans Attorneys Guilty in Staged Auto Accident Scheme 
Depreciation on ACV Is OK, Court Says in Knocking Down Class Action vs. Cincinnati 
