Equinox on the Battenkill Management Assn., Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co.

¶ 28.

I concur in the result, but write separately to emphasize the ways in which I part ways with the majority’s approach.

¶ 29. First and foremost, I simply don’t understand the majority’s instructions to the trial court with respect to the scope of the “collapse” coverage. The majority concludes that the proper construction of the language in question, providing for coverage for “ ‘loss’ caused by or resulting from risks of direct physical ‘loss’ involving collapse of ‘buildings’ or any part of ‘buildings,’ ” is not governed by Gage. Instead, the majority holds — and I agree — that the…