What constitutes a fortuitous loss in Arizona? That’s the question the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has asked the Arizo
na Supreme Court to answer to resolve a commercial property damage dispute.
The circuit court is seeking clarity from the state Supreme Court, because Arizona case law is unclear on when a loss becomes fortuitous.
In the underlying case, the owner of a Tempe commercial building submitted a claim to Great Northern Insurance
Company seeking coverage for property damage caused by of one of its tenants, a seafood distributor. Mainspring Capital Group,
the building owner, found multiple instances of damage over a 12-year period.
Mainspring first discovered damage caused by the seafood distributor in 2010 and made repairs based on recommendation
s by an engineering firm. Mainspring did almost everything the engineers recommended but stopped short of taking any optional measures described in the firm’s remediation program.
In 2014, Mainspring added a provision to the lease that made the tenant responsible for certain restoration obligations.
The second discovery of damage occurred in 2021. This included cracking in concrete wall panels and stairs near the fishery’s docking bay.
More damage was discovered in 2022, including the degradation of co
ncrete tilt panels to the extent that the building’s structural integrity was compromised. Mainspring sent a notice of loss to Great Northern.
Watch More Image Part 2 >>>
The insurer denied Mainspring coverage under an all-risk property insurance policy after its investigation concluded that the building damage was a result of poor soil preparation
settlement, and long-term erosion, a loss the insurer said fell within the policy’s inherent-vice, faulty-workmanship, settling, and wear-and-tear exclusions.
After conducting a second site visit at the request of Mainspring, the insurer again denied coverage, asserting that th
e cause of loss was expressly excluded from coverage by the wear-and-tear and settling exclusions.
Mainspring sued Great Northern in the Superior Court for Maricopa County, alleging the insurer breached the terms of the policy by denying coverage and breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing.
The court granted Great Northern’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit and awarded the insurer approximately $200,000 in attorneys’ fees.
While the district court found no evidence that Mainspring knew t
he loss would occur, the court reasoned that the loss was not fortuitous because it “was reasonably foreseeable and almost certain to occur,” as Mainsp
ring took only the engineering firm’s recommended measures to “mitigate” future damage, and not the measures recommended to “prevent it.”
The provision in the lease shifting the cost of any repair onto the tenant showed that Mainspring anticipated that future damage may occur, the district court ruled.
Mainspring appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit, which homed in on the “primary issue” of whether Mainspring’s loss
was fortuitous. The issue of fortuity is fundamental to the practice of insurance.
“The principle that insurance may cover only the risk of fortuitous loss is one o
f the few ‘mandatory rules’ of insurance law—a rule that is considered to ‘protect interests or further goals that are sufficiently important to supplant freedom of contract.'” the appeals court wrote.