Poore v. Main St. Am. Assurance Co.

A homeowners’ insurance policy does not cover the plaintiffs’ claim for damage due to mold that occurred because of water infiltration into their house over time from a leaky gutter.

A single phenomenon that is clearly an excluded risk under the policy was not meant to become compensable because in a philosophical sense it can also be classified as water damage; it would not be easy to find a case of rot or dampness of atmosphere not equally subject to that label, and the mold exclusions would become practically meaningless.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment granted.

Poore v. Main St. Am. Assurance Co., No. 1:18cv22, Nov. 28, 2018. WDVA at Abingdon (Jones).

Categories: U.S. District Court - Western District of Virginia


%d bloggers like this: