Court Upholds Insurer’s Denial of Vulture-Related Roof Damage Claim Under Infestation Exclusion

The peculiar case of a Pennsylvania-based property owner’s appeal for a denied insurance claim brings to light the intricate nuances of insurance policy language and definitions. The owner’s claim for $300,000 to repair a Maryland commercial building’s roof, damaged by turkey vultures, was initially denied by Hanover American Insurance. This denial was grounded in the policy’s exclusion for damage from nesting or an infestation by birds. Both the federal district court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision in 2022.

Hanover’s stance was based on the behavior of turkey vultures, which do not build traditional nests but return to the same nesting sites year after year. This behavior, according to Hanover, fell under the dictionary definition of ’infestation’ - to spread or swarm in a troublesome manner. The policy specifically excluded damage from nesting, infestation, or discharge by animals, leading Hanover to conclude there was no coverage for the loss.

Mitchellville Plaza Bar, the claimant, acknowledged the vultures caused the roof damage but argued that the activities of nesting and infesting were not present. They accused Hanover of bad faith in denying the claim. However, eyewitness testimonies and inspection reports indicated a persistent presence of a significant number of vultures, ranging between 10 to 75, over several months. This was contrary to the property owner’s expert ornithologist, who suggested that the damage was likely caused by a brief, acute incident by a small number of vultures.

The court found no requirement in the policy for a species-specific biological definition of infestation. It concluded that the plain meaning of ’infestation’ is the unwanted and persistent presence of a number of animals large enough to cause harm or damage. The court ruled that the expert’s conclusions, which conflicted with eyewitness accounts, did not establish a genuine dispute of material fact, thus upholding the summary judgment in favor of Hanover.