Fla. court: Insurance policy did not cover water damage from Hurricane Irma
GBS Investment Group asserted that property it owned in Miami had suffered water damage “due to a roof leak, caused by wind-driven rain.”
A federal district court in Florida has granted summary judgment in favor of an insurer in a case in which a property owner sought coverage for water damage to its building from Hurricane Irma.
The case
GBS Investment Group asserted that property it owned in Miami had suffered water damage “due to a roof leak, caused by wind-driven rain.” It notified its insurer, United Specialty Insurance Company, and sought coverage and payment for the damage in the amount of $175,045.01.
United Specialty retained an engineer, Estuardo Terraza, to inspect the property to determine the cause and extent of damage.
He concluded that the reported damage had been caused by long-term rainwater/moisture entering through the building envelope as a result of wind, wear and tear, and deterioration to the roof coverings and waterproofing sealants, deficient roof repairs, and a general lack of maintenance of the roof surface, as well as wear and tear, deterioration, and inadequate maintenance of window and door perimeter sealant and stucco finishes.
Terraza also determined that the property exhibited evidence of wind damage to the roof, which was likely the result of Hurricane Irma.
United Specialty later retained a meteorological expert who opined that GBS’ property had probably experienced high wind gusts and heavy rainfall associated with the passage of Hurricane Irma.
Thereafter, United Specialty denied coverage for the GBS claim, reasoning that the damage had been caused by wind-driven rain that was not covered by the policy — and that was specifically excluded by the policy.
GBS sued United Specialty for breach of contract. It retained its own expert, Rafael Leyva, a Florida licensed general contractor, to inspect and evaluate the damage. In a sworn declaration, Leyva confirmed that Hurricane Irma had caused debris to strike and damage the roofing system, resulting in moisture and rainwater entering the interior of the property.
United Specialty moved for summary judgment. United Specialty maintained that the water damage to the GBS property was not covered under the policy because the limitations and exclusion sections of the United Specialty policy specifically excluded coverage for damage caused by rain from any source, whether driven by wind or not.
For its part, GBS cited to its expert’s declaration that the GBS property had experienced water damage due to Hurricane Irma.
The district court’s decision
The district court granted the motion.
In its decision, the district court found that the undisputed evidence showed that the wind-driven rain of Hurricane Irma had entered the property due to deterioration of the roof coverings and waterproofing sealants, deficient roof repairs, and a general lack of maintenance of the roof surface, as well as wear and tear, deterioration, and inadequate maintenance of window and door perimeter sealant and stucco finishes.
The district court found that the limitations and exclusions sections of the United Specialty policy “clearly and unambiguously” excluded coverage for water intrusion caused by wind-driven rain and that GBS had not demonstrated any issue of fact as to whether Hurricane Irma had caused the damage.
The district court concluded that the damage identified by GBS was specifically excluded from coverage and that any resulting damage did not satisfy an exception to the water intrusion limitation or exclusions.
The case is GBS Investment Group v. United Specialty Ins. Co., No. 18-23310-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN (S.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2019).
Related:
- Failure to file proof of loss doomed claim for hurricane damage
- Increased water damage claims fuel new claims technology
- Court: Insured cannot recover for a loss as a third-party beneficiary
This article first appeared on sister-site Law.com.