Should the Fongs collect for damage from their earthquake insurer?

The Fongs returned from vacation to discover that their house had been damaged by the Loma Prieta earthquake. Problem: the house was not in great shape in the first place; in fact it seemed that many of the same cracks had existed before the quake, though they hadn't seemed as bad. So the Fongs thought about it for months  until finally Mr. Fong got around to making a claim for the damage. The insurance company agreed that the policy covered earthquake damage, but they said Mr. Fong had missed the reporting deadline, and besides, the damage looked old to them. The Fongs hired Meehan as expert to help  them in an arbitration that the judge required them to go through with their insurer.

Should the Gibault's homeowner insurance, which excludes earthquake damage, pay for the damage?

The April 24, 1985 Morgan Hill earthquake (ML = 6.2, MMI = VIII) caused severe damage to the Gibault home.  The Gibaults had State Farm Insurance with a policy which, due to a policy change which was supposedly communicated to the Gibault's by registered mail, excluded any damage from earthquake, even where builders' negligence existed as a "concurrent" cause.  State Farm determined that the earthquake was the predominating cause of the damage, and therefore refused to pay.  The Gibaults sued for coverage, claiming that the predominating cause of the damage was negligent construction of their home, which should be covered (They said they hadn't been properly notified of the policy change)  Meehan, witness for State Farm, took the position that the home would have been damaged even if builders' negligence wasn't present, because of the very high local peak acceleration. Should the insurance company pay up?

Should the Cabigas' earthquake insurance pay for the damage to their house?

After a moderate earthquake on March 23, and an intense rainstorm on March 24 and 25, the hillside behind the Cabigas' house failed causing extensive damage to the property. The Cabigases have earthquake insurance. The insurance company is claiming that the rainfall caused the damage and not the earthquake, therefore they are not liable for the loss. The Cabigases are suing the insurance company for the damage to their house. Their expert, Meehan, says that the smallish earthquake which preceded the rain storm loosened the slope and predisposed it to failure when it rained. Should the insurer pay?