By Jeffrey Boxer

If an insurance company writes ambiguous policy language, the insured has coverage.  In a recent case handled by this office, involving a roofing claim and subsequent denial by American Family Insurance, American Family attempted to limit coverage (pay less to its insureds than a neutral appraiser had found the claim to be worth) with a provision that read, in relevant part, that the insurer “will not pay for any damage caused by hail to any metal vent, flashing, drip edge, ridge, valley, accessory, or trim unless such metal component . . . will no longer: (1) prevent water from entering the building; or (2) perform any other intended function.”  As the term “any other intended function” was not defined in the policy, this office argued that such exclusionary clauses exempting the insurer from providing coverage in certain circumstances must be written in clear and specific language and construed in favor of coverage.  See, e.g., McGowan v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 100 P.3d 521, 523 (Colo. App. 2004).  After voluminous briefing, the Federal Court for the District of Colorado the term “perform any other intended function” was in fact ambiguous.