Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

February 04, 2019 | Publication| The Challenges of Adjusting Long-Term Water Losses

Timothy R. Engelbrecht

This article is originally a publication of the Southern Loss Association newsletter, January 2019. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual differences. All rights reserved.

Many residential and commercial property insurance policies contain an exclusion that excludes loss caused by constant or repeated leakage or seepage. However, it has become more and more difficult to determine exactly when and under what circumstances that sort of exclusion applies. The purpose of this article is to discuss three case law decisions (Hoey, Price, and Hicks) that address this exclusion with the hope of adding some clarity to the issue.

1. The Hoey case (2008).

In the case of Hoey v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 988 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), a house was vacant between the months of April and November. During that time, over 15,000 gallons of water escaped from a toilet supply line and damaged the house. The insured testified that the damage was caused by "a continuous leakage from that toilet pipe, for a course of three weeks or so" and by a "sudden accidental discharge of water."

The insurance policy contained an exclusion for loss caused by "continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water or steam from a plumbing system, which occurs over a period of time." An expert testified at trial that the water bills showed water usage had increased gradually from 0 to 26 gallons a day in September, 240 gallons a day in October, and 420 gallons a day in November. The court ruled that the exclusion applied. The court rejected the argument that the exclusion was ambiguous.

2. The Price case (2014).

In the case of Price v. Castle Key Indem. Co., 152 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2014), 195,000 gallons of water escaped from an upstairs bathroom while the family was out of town for an extended period causing damage. The insurance policy insured against "sudden and accidental direct physical loss to property." However, the insurance policy contained an exclusion that excluded loss caused by "continuous or repeated seepage or leakage over a period of weeks, months, or years."

The insurer argued the exclusion applied to the water damage. The insured argued that the exclusion did not apply because the start of the water loss was sudden, and that such a large volume of water could not be considered a seepage. The court concluded that the words "sudden" and "seepage" were ambiguous when applied to the facts of the case and ordered that the issues in the case be submitted to a jury for determination (i.e. no summary judgment).

3. The Hicks case (2018).

In the case of Hicks v. Amer. Integrity Ins. Co. of Fla., 241 So.3d 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), the water supply line to the insured's refrigerator began leaking while the insured was out of town. It was a slow leak at first, but over the course of five weeks, the supply line ended up discharging almost 1,000 gallons each day. The insurance policy was an all-risk policy with an exclusion for loss caused by "constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water over a period of 14 or more days."

The insurer argued the exclusion applied to all the water damage. The insured argued that the damage caused by the water during the first 13 days of the water leak should be covered because the exclusion only applies to water losses over a period of 14 or more days. The court ruled the exclusion was ambiguous and that the insured was entitled to coverage for damages he could prove occurred within the first 13 days.

4. Trying to make sense of it all.

Each of these three cases has the long-term leakage exclusion. But the precise language of each exclusion in each case is a little different. In Hoey, the exclusion is "over a period of time." In Price, the exclusion is "over a period of weeks, months, or years." And in Hicks, the exclusion is "over a period of 14 or more days." The court in Hoey found that exclusion unambiguous, while the courts in Price and Hicks found the exclusions there ambiguous.

From a practical standpoint, adjusters should endeavor to learn as much about the facts of any water loss as possible. It is critical to try to learn when the loss started, how the rate of the loss changed over time, and - if possible - when the particular property in question became damaged during the course of the water-loss event. Unfortunately, though, correctly applying the long-term leakage exclusion will continue to be a challenge.

Should you have any questions about this article, would like more information about this topic, or have would like to discuss another coverage matter, please contact Mr. Engelbrecht at e-mail tengelbrecht@butler.legal or telephone (813.594.5805).

Timothy R. Engelbrecht | PARTNER

Extra-Contractual and First-Party Coverage

(813) 594-5805 | TAMPA

June 13, 2018 PublicationGood-Faith Claim Handling in Florida - Part II

This article is a continuation of the "Good-Faith Claim Handling in Florida" article that appeared in the Southern Loss Association Newsletter in February 2018. That article discussed the history and background of Florida Statute § 624.155, which is commonly referred to as Florida's bad-faith statute. The statute provides the exclusive remedy for people who believe they have been damaged by bad-faith claim handling practices in the first-party insurance context in Florida.

Read More »
February 05, 2018 PublicationGood-Faith Claim Handling in Florida

Like many states, Florida law allows a person under a first-party insurance contract to sue an insurer if the person has been damaged by certain actions often referred to as "bad-faith" claim handling practices. The purpose of this article is to explain how Florida addresses bad-faith claim handling practices. This article will also provide examples of how claims professionals can ensure they are always handling claims in good faith.

Read More »
January 12, 2018 PublicationCoverage Even When An Insured Does Not Own the Property?

Insurable interest is a legal concept which requires an insured to have

a financial or other interest in the claimed, damaged property before being entitled to coverage. Although this concept is easy to grasp, it can be troublesome in application, such as when an insured does not own the claimed property. Below are two case studies-one from Georgia and one from North Carolina-which show how an insurable interest may arise and how these States treat this concept. Also below are several suggestions a party may utilize when assessing the presence (or absence) of an insurable interest.

Read More »
December 18, 2017 PublicationFlorida Insurance Appraisals: Don't Get Me Started!

Since the start of my insurance coverage career, I have had a legal-philosophical interest in insurance appraisals. It has been a frustrating and fascinating roller coaster ride of appellate and Florida Supreme Court decisions. Back in 1997, I had a few cases involving appraisal demands, and my research soon revealed a puzzling anomaly. Florida law at the time treated appraisals like arbitrations subject to the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC"). This was wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Arbitrations and appraisals are different creatures. An arbitration resolves all issues, the entirety of a dispute. They are a substitute for court proceedings. Appraisals don't resolve disputes like arbitrations do; they are not a form of "alternative dispute resolution" contrary to conventional description. Instead, appraisals are designed to set a previously unknown contractual term when the parties cannot agree to one - the amount or value of loss or damage. And, presumably, they set the value of direct, physical loss to property that the parties agree is covered by the policy. But I digress. More on that later.

Read More »
August 21, 2018 PublicationJohn Garaffa "Business Interruption and Damage Claims"

Partner John Garaffa wrote a chapter titled "Business Interruption and Damage Claims" for the 5th Edition of The Complete Guide to Economic Damages.

Read More »
June 20, 2018 PublicationPerspectives on the ALI Restatement: The Plain Meaning Rule or Presumption?

The American Law Institute (ALI) voted to approve the Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance (Restatement) at its annual meeting on Tuesday, May 22, 2018, with sections of the Restatement being debated until the final vote. The debate had resulted in many different drafts of the Restatement, with the Council of Advisors to the Restatement Reporters approving Proposed Final Draft No. 2 on April 13, 2018. This was the version ultimately approved by the ALI Members during the annual meeting.

Read More »
June 13, 2018 PublicationGood-Faith Claim Handling in Florida - Part II

This article is a continuation of the "Good-Faith Claim Handling in Florida" article that appeared in the Southern Loss Association Newsletter in February 2018. That article discussed the history and background of Florida Statute § 624.155, which is commonly referred to as Florida's bad-faith statute. The statute provides the exclusive remedy for people who believe they have been damaged by bad-faith claim handling practices in the first-party insurance context in Florida.

Read More »
April 30, 2018 PublicationAllocating Responsibility for Defense and Indemnity Costs Among Multiple Insurers

It is not necessary that the policies provide identical coverage in all respects in order for … each insurer [to be] entitled to contribution from the other; as long as the particular risk actually involved in the case is covered by both policies, the coverage is duplicate, and contribution will be allowed.

Read More »
March 20, 2018 PublicationIdentity Restoration Insurance: Why Would I Need That?

When retired nurse Helen Anderson flew to visit her sick daughter, she let her niece, Samantha, housesit. Though she had instructed her niece that no friends were allowed over, Helen found Samantha in the house with her friend, Alice Lipski, when she returned. After asking Alice to leave, Helen didn’t think more about her friend being in her house.

Read More »
February 01, 2018 PublicationA Theoretical Safety on the Trigger of the Duty to Defend

The Eleventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals recently decided Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast v. William P. White Racing Stables, Inc., et al., 2017 WL 6368843 (December 13, 2017), a case addressing limits upon what facts and legal theories may give rise to a duty to defend. In an unpublished opinion,[1] the court held the district court erred in finding a duty to defend based upon a theory of liability which was not pled, even though it agreed the facts alleged in the complaint could support a claim apparently within the scope of coverage provided by the liability policy.

Read More »
July 14, 2017 PublicationFlorida Water Loss Claims: What's Owed, And When?

Water loss lawsuits have spiked dramatically in Florida during the past few years. Insurers simply cannot resolve the unusually large differences in water damage estimates. Scope of estimated matching work usually explains the disparity. And litigation ensues over this hypothetical question: Can the water-damaged or tear out items be replaced and then matched to undamaged adjoining items; and if not, what is the proper scope of the matching work?

Read More »
November 23, 2016 PublicationAwash in AOBs

Hurricane Matthew lashed Florida’s eastern coast in early October causing significant damage to both residential and commercial property.  While Hurricane Matthew is gone, Florida insurers are now bracing for another type of storm, namely a flood of assigned insurance claims in the wake of Hurricane Matthew’s destruction.  Over the past few years, assigned insurance claims – often referred to assignments of benefits or AOBs – have been particularly challenging for first-party property insurers in Florida.  AOBs raise unique issues, including fraud concerns.

Read More »
October 18, 2016 PublicationFollow Up on Assignment of Benefits Litigation in Florida

In the summer of 2016, SLA published an article titled "Assignment of Benefit Litigation in Florida." The article was an introduction to the topic of assignments of benefits ("AOB") in Florida and how they are being used in insurance claims and litigation. Many readers asked for a follow up article that would provide some additional information and analysis on certain AOB topics. This article will spotlight four of those topics and give the reader some additional information and analysis on each of them.

Read More »
June 24, 2016 PublicationAssignment of Benefits Litigation in Florida

Over the past five years, first-party property insurers in Florida have been experiencing a wave of claims and lawsuits by contractors who obtain insurance rights from insureds through document called an assignment of benefits ("AOB"). This article is intended to introduce the reader to this topic and explain some of the challenges facing insurers in dealing with AOBs in Florida. The reader is welcome to contact the author to learn more.

Read More »
May 01, 2015 PublicationDefining Structual Damage: The Eleventh Circuit Rules

Section 627.706, Florida Statutes, has not always required "structural damage" as part of a "sinkhole loss." Until 2005, the statute required "actual physical damage to the property." The 2005 amendment to section 627.706 narrowed the damage requirement to "structural damage to the building" but left "structural damage" undefined. In 2011, the legislature codified five criteria that individually define "structural damage." See § 627.706(2)(k), Fla. Stat.

Read More »
November 24, 2014 PublicationThe Coverage Action 'Fixed' Bad Faith Damages: Are The Total Damages Binding?

Florida state and federal courts struggle with excess damage verdicts in first-party bad-faith actions arising out of uninsured motorist/underinsured motorist (UM) coverage. Recent case decisions produce mixed results for insurers. But mention UM coverage, bad faith, and total damages, and Florida Statute Section 627.727(10) immediately comes to mind. Comments by two judges framed the Section 10 debate.

Read More »
June 26, 2014 PublicationUninsured Motorist Bad-Faith Claims: Separate Action, Separate Trial, Separate Damages

First-party bad-faith claims arising from uninsured motorist (UM) coverage are separate and independent actions, too. If the uninsured motorist coverage action is truly separate and distinct from bad faith, one naturally expects a separate trial on bad-faith liability and extracontractual damages. However, there is a unique problem confronting first-party bad-faith claims arising from uninsured motorist coverage under Florida Statute Section 627.727(10). One decision characterizes the problem as a ‘‘conundrum'' created by Florida law.

Read More »
Key Points