## Facts

- Ronald and Patty Panico owned Travis Electronics, which held a property insurance policy issued by Truck Insurance Exchange.
- Rain entered Travis’s storeroom through the roof, damaging business property, and Travis submitted a claim for the loss.
- The insurer denied coverage, asserting the loss was covered only if caused by “collapse of a building or any part of a building,” and contending no qualifying collapse occurred.
- The parties disputed whether the roof’s condition and resulting water intrusion could constitute a covered “collapse” under the policy.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court’s “best case” offer-of-proof procedure should be treated on appeal like a nonsuit after opening statement, requiring all inferences to be drawn in favor of the losing party.
2. Whether, under that standard, the insured’s proffered facts could support a finding of coverage under the policy’s “collapse of a building or any part of a building” provision.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for Truck Insurance Exchange on Travis Electronics’ claims and remanded for further proceedings.
- Because the trial court invited a “best case” factual presentation and ruled that even if those facts were proven there would be no coverage, the appellate court reviewed the ruling as analogous to a nonsuit after opening statement.
- Applying that standard, the insured’s proffered facts and reasonable inferences were sufficient to require resolution by a trier of fact rather than termination as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- When a case is effectively decided on a plaintiff’s offer of proof without a full evidentiary record (and without a clearly agreed evidentiary court trial), appellate review may proceed under standards comparable to a nonsuit, resolving conflicts and reasonable inferences against the judgment.
- Under nonsuit-like review, the plaintiff’s proffered facts are assumed true for purposes of determining whether the claim can proceed.
- Whether roof failure and resulting water damage fall within a “collapse” coverage provision is fact-dependent; if the insured’s proffer reasonably supports a finding of collapse, coverage cannot be rejected as a matter of law on a truncated record.

## Conclusion

The court held that the trial court’s offer-of-proof procedure required nonsuit-like review on appeal and that, viewing the proffered facts favorably to the insured, triable issues existed as to whether the loss resulted from a covered “collapse,” requiring reversal and remand.


Panico v. Truck Ins. Exch., 90 Cal. App. 4th 1294, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 638 (Ct. App. 2001)