In 1996, Preferred Mutual Insurance Company was sued after it denied part of a homeowners claim. Its insureds, the Meggisons, filed a claim for damage to thier home from ice and snow. Part of the Meggison home suffered water damage and part of their porch collapsed. They reported that the latter was due to the weight of the snow and ice on their porch roof. The collapse was denied because Preferred determined that it was caused by a construction defect, so it was excluded from coverage.

While the Meggisons sued Preferred for breach of contract, the insurer reacted by requesting a summary judgment to their insured’s suit with their request for declaratory judgment. The original trial jury, as did the insurer, visited the Meggison’s home to inspect the loss site. Preferred also offered expert testimony on the way the Meggisons’ porch was structurally supported. The testimony was that the support was inadequate. The technical opinion was that, while the damage was due to the roof load, the load should have been supported without incident. However, the cantilevered method to support the home’s roof provided inadequate support. A trial verdict was made in favor of Preferred. The insureds appealed the decision. When their motion was denied, the Meggisons appealed the denial.

The higher court reviewed the appeal which was based on the Meggisons’ assertion that lower court erred in refusing their motion as well as that they relied on an expectation of coverage from a contract of adhesion. The superior court found no error with the lower court decision and did not consider the ambiguity issue since that argument was not made in the original complaint. The lower court decision was affirmed and the Meggisons were ordered to pay the insurer’s court costs and attorney fees.