In the case of Lords Landing Village Condominium Council of Unit Owners v. Continental Insurance Company, 1996, the condominium council filed a lawsuit against their insurance company for denying coverage after damages caused by a storm. The insurer argued that they were not liable as per the "wear and tear" exclusion in the policy which stated that any damage resulting from wear and tear or deterioration was not covered. However, this particular damage was due to an ice dam on roofs which had formed because of faulty design and construction - something outside normal 'wear and tear'. The court ruled in favor of Lords Landing Village Condominium Council stating that while wear-and-tear exclusions are common in insurance policies to avoid covering inevitable aging processes, it does not apply when an excluded risk is only one component cause within a chain leading ultimately to harm or destruction.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Lords Landing Village Condominium Council of Unit Owners v. Continental Insurance Company argued that the majority's interpretation of the insurance policy was incorrect and overly narrow. The dissent believed that a more reasonable reading would have included coverage for all damages resulting from covered perils, not just those explicitly listed in the policy. They contended that this broader interpretation was consistent with both industry standards and common sense understanding of how insurance policies work. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for failing to consider evidence showing that both parties intended for such comprehensive coverage when entering into their agreement. This oversight, according to them, led to an unjust result where a party who paid premiums on an insurance policy could not recover under it despite suffering losses from a peril clearly covered by its terms.