A Florida court, facing competing expert opinions, has ruled that a jury had to determine whether Hurricane Irma or improper installation or maintenance of the insured's roof led to its damage.
The Case
Sandra Patricia Alvarez asserted that property she owned in Miami was damaged when Hurricane Irma struck Florida in September 2017. Contending that her insurer, GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company, failed to pay her claim, she sued.
GeoVera moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had not breached Ms. Alvarez's insurance policy because the damage to her property had not occurred as a result of a "wind-created opening" in the roof. In support, GeoVera relied on opinions proffered by engineer Heather Anesta, who inspected the property on November 10, 2017 and ultimately determined that the damage to the roof had not been caused by Hurricane Irma.
Instead, GeoVera claimed, the damage to the property had occurred because of improper installation or maintenance of the roof prior to the storm's occurrence, which was excluded from coverage under the policy.
Ms. Alvarez filed her own motion for summary judgment. She relied on her own expert, Al Brizuela, who opined that the damage to the property was directly traceable to the hurricane. Mr. Brizuela, a civil engineer, also inspected the property and determined that wind gusts and pressure from Hurricane Irma had caused the home's roofing system to fail, which allowed rain water to enter the property and caused the damage claimed by Ms. Alvarez.
For this reason, she contended, the policy had to provide coverage, or at least that there was a genuine issue of material fact that should be resolved at trial.
The Court's Decision
The court denied both parties' motions.
In its decision, the court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact: whether disrepair had caused the water to enter the property, as GeoVera's expert claimed, or if hurricane force winds had caused the roofing system to fail, as Ms. Alvarez contended.
The court noted that if it were to weigh the credibility of either expert's conclusions, it would be engaging in "improper fact-finding."
The court was not persuaded by GeoVera's argument that the findings and conclusions reached by Mr. Brizuela were "unreliable and unpersuasive." The court said that even if GeoVera's points on this issue were compelling, it could not "determine during summary judgment whether [p]laintiff's or [d]efendant's experts [were] more credible or persuasive."
Therefore, the court concluded, the issue should be tried, and a determination made after a jury heard all testimony about what ultimately had caused the damage at the property.
The case is Alvarez v. GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co., No. 18-22752-CV-WILLIAMS/TORRES (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2019). Attorneys involved include: For Sandra Patricia Alvarez, Plaintiff: Jose Pete Font, LEAD ATTORNEY, Font & Nelson, LLC, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Bryan T. Fischer, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Joseph Peter Glace, Trujillo Vargas Gonzalez Hevia, Coral Gables, FL. For GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant: Jenelle E. La Chuisa, Groelle & Salmon, P.A., Miami, FL; Daniel Martin McNalis, Groelle & Salmon, West Palm Beach, FL.
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].