Russell v. NGM Insurance Company
New Hampshire Supreme Court
176 A.3d 196 (2017)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Michelle and Robert Russell (plaintiffs) discovered moisture and mold in their attic that resulted from faulty workmanship, including ventilation and insulation defects. The Russells moved out of their home for almost a year while the mold was eradicated, and they submitted a loss-of-use claim under their homeowners’ insurance policy. NGM Insurance Company (NGM) (defendant) denied the claim on the ground that the policy covered mold only if caused by an insured-against peril, and covered perils specifically excluded faulty workmanship. The mold endorsement excluded losses from constant or repeated water damage unless such damage was completely hidden so that the insureds did not know about it. However, the policy also contained an ensuing-loss clause that provided an exception to coverage exclusions if an excluded peril was part of a chain of events that damaged the property. The Russells sued for a declaratory judgment, arguing that the hidden water seepage and mold were ensuing losses resulting from the faulty workmanship. The court found the policy did not cover the loss and granted NGM summary judgment. The Russells appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dalianis, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.