The federal district court denied cross motions seeking to establish whether the policy covered damage due to smells in the insureds’ newly purchased home. Akina v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2026 U.S Dist. LEXIS 162817 (W. D. Wash. July 22, 2026).
Plaintiffs bought a home in May 2024 but never conducted an inspection before purchasing the property. Before moving in, plaintiffs secured a homeowners’ polilcy from State Farm.
After moving in, plaintiffs began noticing smells in the house and started suffering from health symptoms. Plaintiffs learned from neighbors that the prior occupants had been witnessed in “drug activity.” Plaintiffs moved out of the house and had testing done. The home tested positive for methamphetamine pollution.
Plaintiffs filed a claim with State Farm, but the claim was denied. State Farm contended the contamination was present prior to the policy period.
Plaintiffs sued and cross motions for summary judgment were filed. The parties stipulated that “the methamphetamine pollution of the property occurred sometime between late 2022 and late 2023, but in any event it is undisputed it occurred prior to May 23, 2024.”
Under Washington’s “continuous trigger” theory, an insurer could be held liable for all damages to the insured property, even if the process of damage started before the policy period, so long as the insured could show that some form of new or worsening damage took place during the policy period.
State Farm argued plaintiffs were not covered because: (1) it was undisputed that the initial methamphetamine contamination occurred before the policy’s inception; (2) plaintiffs had now shown that any new or worsening damage occurred during the policy period; and (3) even if they could plaintiff were still not entitled to coverage because the claimed loss was subject to the policy’s “contamination” exclusion.
Plaintiffs argued the methamphetamine contamination was “progressive in nature” and some form of damage occurred during the policy period. Further, the loss was due to “vandalism,” not “contamination.”
The court concluded neither party was entitled to summary judgment. A reasonable juror could conclude that new parts of the home were contaminated or that contamination in the home worsened during the policy period, thereby triggering coverage under the continuous trigger theory. This raised a genuine dispute of material fact – whether plaintiffs’ loss was progressive and incremental, with new loss commencing and damage worsening during the policy period.
Further, there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the form occupants’ drug activity in the house constituted “vandalism” under the policy.