Insureds appealed from a trial court judgment that collapse damage to their new home was not covered under pertinent provisions of their homeowners policy. The policy, in force during the construction period, stated that: "....We insure for direct physical loss to covered property involving collapse of a building or any part of a building caused by one or more of the following....f. use of defective material or methods in construction, remodeling or renovation if the collapse occurs during the course of construction, remodeling or renovation."

The contractor had installed a pre-built truss system on the first floor, as the insureds wanted a clear-span basement. The flooring began to bow and warp after the roof was installed. Cracks, separations and numerous other "collapse" problems developed despite efforts by the builder to shore up the structure. The cost of replacement of the truss system with a different support structure was $49,000. The insureds, in their lawsuit against the insurer, alleged that the collapse provision covered their damages.

The trial court held and the insurer argued that the policy did not cover design defects. A professional engineer, hired by the insureds, said that the trusses were "underdesigned" and that the truss system was in a "state of collapse."

Contending, on appeal, that their damages were within the scope of the quoted collapse coverage provisions, the insureds argued that the truss system used "was a 'defective material' which caused the collapse or alternatively that the 'method in construction' includes the design and manufacture of component parts of the home." The insurer maintained that a design defect that caused the collapse was not a "defective material" or a "method in construction."

The appeal court concluded that the truss system used was suitable for the load for which it was designed but not for the excessive weight involved here. The policy did not cover design defects. The court said: "If the policy were interpreted to include coverage for design defects, the homeowner insurer would functionally become the malpractice or errors and omissions insurer for the architects or other persons responsible for the truss specifications."

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in favor of the insurer and against the insureds.

(HATHAWAY ET UX., Plaintiffs, Appellants v. CEDERBURG MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Respondent; HERITAGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff v. HATHAWAY ET AL., Third-Party Defendants. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District II. No. 92-3200. June 16, 1993. CCH 1993-94 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 4364.)