Tag Archives: State Farm

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claim for Long Term Water Leak Not Excluded as a Matter of Law

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Overview:

In Price v. Castle Key Indemnity Company, Florida’s Second DCA recently dealt a heavy hit to homeowners insurers’ arguments using the continuous/constant or repeated seepage defense.

Drop of water

 

Facts

The facts in Price were a prime example of a long term water damage insurance claim. The homeowners insurer gathered strong evidence, and was able to show that this leak continued for weeks and weeks without any stoppage. The insurer’s evidence was startling: over a period of more than 30 days, over 195,000 gallons of water escaped from a pipe going to the homeowner’s toilet.  Faced with this evidence, the trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer.

The Second DCA disagreed with the insurer and the trial court. The Second DCA’s reason: the terms “sudden” and “seepage” were “less than clear” when applied to these facts. Accordingly, the Second DCA determined that these words created a latent ambiguity.  The Second DCA instructed the trial court to allow a jury to determine coverage in this case, instead of a judge.

Disappointing Discussion

Although this is the most heavily litigated coverage issue in Florida homeowners insurance, the Second DCA did not take much time to explain its decision.

These long term water damage opinions don’t come often. Usually, claims do not have such egregiously long leaks, or they have some type of dispute on the duration … so they should be determined by a jury. When the rare case like this pops up, you would think the Second DCA would take the chance to explain what types of long term water damage should be covered as a matter of law under these policies; and what types shouldn’t be.

Unfortunately, the Second DCA did not take that opportunity. Moving forward, this leaves many unanswered questions, and a lot of room for interpretation for trial court judges. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were tens of thousands of pending claims with this issue. The parties and lawyers handling those cases don’t seem to have much to work with from that case, unless they are to assume every insurance policy is ambiguous.

Takeaway

In trial court hearings, this Price opinion will give homeowners’ attorneys stronger arguments, but only if the homeowners insurer tries to obtain summary judgment.  Most of these cases don’t go that route.

I would not be surprised to see other DCAs take a different approach than the Second DCA did in Price.  I doubt all courts will be willing to find that every insurance policy is ambiguous as to long term water losses. A case like this is the perfect example of a case where insurers could be granted summary judgment.

We will see how this changes the strategies. Hopefully, we will get some more opinions on this issue soon.


Have Any More Questions about Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims?

Please contact us.


Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook and Litigation Data Reports:

Before we go on, if you are in the Florida homeowners insurance claims industry and are looking for a guide with the key cases, strategies, laws, attorneys, and adjusters, or if you’re looking for Florida litigation data reports, please visit this page to learn more about our Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook.


Here is a full copy of the order:

Download (PDF, 51KB)

 

Florida Appellate Court on Rodrigo v. State Farm and Insurance Policy Conditions Precedent After Curran

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

A Florida appellate court recently made some important decisions for anyone interested in Florida homeowners insurance.  Do you need to know about the legal impact of issues with Examinations Under Oath, Proofs of Loss, and the Other Policy Conditions.  Then you must read this article.


The Fourth District Court Appeals recently issued the first decision on conditions precedent in insurance policies since the Curran case.

Download (PDF, 132KB)

Things are too busy at Todd Legal, P.A. to do the usual “deep dive” into the ruling and the impact, but I wanted to make sure everyone was aware of the decision.  As you know, we at Todd Legal provide software and other innovative services to Florida’s property insurers and their attorneys to deliver legal services that are smarter, cheaper, and quicker than what insurers have come to expect.  We are nearing the delivery stage, so I am not going to be able to timely analyze this Rodrigo decision in enough detail to assess its overall impact.

In summary, the Fourth DCA held that the proof of loss provision is still a condition precedent after Curran.  I encourage you to read the full opinion and focus on how the requirement was laid out in this policy, including the loss settlement provision.  Once again, we will await the next decision to see how courts may eventually interpret the EUO provision after Curran, but this decision certainly helps insurers and their attorneys when they try to explain to the judges that Curran may only apply to auto accident/UM cases.  I apologize for the brief analysis and will try to supplement this article in the near future.

home 3


Did this Article Answer Your Homeowners Insurance Question?

If not, please contact us.

Florida’s 5th DCA Enforces Homeowners Insurance Sinkhole Stabilization Contract for Repair Requirement

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

The Fifth DCA, in State Farm v. Fred & Carol Phillips, held that the homeowners had to enter into a contract to obtain coverage for sinkhole stabilization repairs determined by the appraisal process.

home 4

The full order is here:

Download (PDF, 72KB)

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4fa29707eab8eaf23d000005/sinkhole.jpg

This is a positive order for the insurance industry; however, it may not be broad enough to provide certainty in the trial courts on the main issues being litigated.  Policyholders’ attorneys will argue that this order is limited to appraisal awards where no other breaches exist. They will say that this case does not apply when an insurer chooses its own engineer, refuses the repairs recommended by the insureds’ engineer, and does not resolve damages in the appraisal process.  This is a much more common scenario than the situation in Phillips.

Insurers’ attorneys may argue this is the authority they have been looking for to support a multitude of arguments they have been urging the trial courts to enforce.  To support any statutory sinkhole argument, insurers’ attorneys will urge the trial courts to conduct the same analysis the Fifth DCA did in Phillips on the legislative intent of the sinkhole statutes.  Insurers’ attorneys may also argue that this order shows they could never breach the policy in a sinkhole insurance claim until the insureds entered into a contract for repairs and the insurers refused to pay in accordance with that contract.

From a practical standpoint, the important question is whether this order creates any legal issues that help the parties avoid trying sinkhole cases.  In other words, does this order create any summary judgment potential that was not already present? Probably not.

Ultimately, this case is not broad enough to provide any specific guidance on these issues; however, insurers do have authority to ask the trial courts to genuinely assess the legislative intent of the sinkhole statutes.  Moving forward, it is important to note insurers do have many important sinkhole issues currently pending with the Second DCA, so we should not have to wait too much longer to get answers on the most litigated questions in Sinkhole Alley.

Takeaway:

I have all of the forms and strategies you need to make results like these a reality in any case.  If you are interested in seeing templates, checklists, and guides to assist you with your sinkhole case, please message me.


Did this Article Answer Your Homeowners Insurance Question?

If not, please contact us.

Florida Homeowners Insurance Litigation Update: Tampa Sinkhole Insurance Claims: Verdict Forms in Sinkhole Trials

Overview:

Check out one of the most popular articles on homeowners insurance litigation there is.  Thousands of people make a living on homeowners insurance claims, but only a small percentage of them understand why homeowners were so successful at litigating these claims.  Although these claims are dwindling, many lessons can be learned for the next wave of insurance claims.

Make sure to read to the end of this article so you can apply for our free Litigation Report.  By giving us that moment of your time, you will receive a free comprehensive analysis and sets of solutions to bring you power and control over your homeowners insurance litigation cases.


Getting Started

New to the First Party Property Insurance Blog? Take five minutes to find the answers to your insurance questions by clicking here.


tech 5

Good morning. I recently spoke with mediator, Robert Daisley, about the current state of sinkhole litigation. Rob is one of the most well respected mediators in Tampa. He is a great mediator because he emphasizes the uncertainties for the parties.

Rob has a strong grasp on the issues and uncertainties in sinkhole cases. Even when the insurer has done everything right in terms of payment and timeliness, Rob is not sure that the insurer will prevail. Why? Because there has been no direct appellate mandate on the proper jury instructions and verdict forms in sinkhole cases. Experienced trial lawyers start their evaluation of a case by crafting their jury instructions. As Rob suggested and as anyone who has handled sinkhole cases should know, judges are far from uniform in agreeing to jury instructions.

While there is plenty of appellate guidance on the issue, that guidance has been twisted and turned into a wide range of jury instructions and verdict forms. Thus, according to Rob, unless a party is prepared to pay its attorneys to litigate at the trial and appellate level, then that party is better off settling the case. The bottom line: knowing how many variations of jury instructions and verdict forms have been issued by the courts, you must be committed to both the trial and appeal to make sure that the court used the right verdict form.

The most critical variation at this time is the burden of proof in a denied sinkhole case. Some judges place the burden of proof on the homeowners to prove sinkhole activity caused the damage, while other judges require the insurers to prove the exclusions caused the damage. This issue is on appeal right now, however, we are months away from a ruling. Rob’s point here is unless you are committed to appealing a problematic verdict form, then trying the case might not be for you.

Another variation in the jury instructions is determining if the verdict form should be limited solely to whether the claim was allegedly underpaid. Some believe the verdict form should consider an insurer’s compliance with the policy and statutes. Others believe the verdict form should should only ask whether the claim was underpaid.

Rob believes that if a party is not committed to trying and appealing these issues, then the party runs the risk of trying the case with unfavorable jury instructions. The following set of verdict forms (check the variations) support his position:

Download (PDF, 102KB)

Download (PDF, 96KB)

Download (PDF, 31KB)

Download (PDF, 87KB)

Download (PDF, 94KB)

Download (PDF, 131KB)

Download (PDF, 84KB)

Download (PDF, 73KB)

Download (PDF, 72KB)

Download (PDF, 137KB)

Download (PDF, 131KB)

Download (PDF, 414KB)

Download (PDF, 35KB)

Download (PDF, 12KB)

The inconsistencies in these forms are glaring, and insurers and homeowners alike should hope that the Second DCA narrows the issues in an effort to eliminate these inconsistencies. While many lawyers seem to believe they can prevail despite the verdict form, properly framed questions for the jury to answer are crucial. Kudos to Rob Daisley for stressing how these issues should impact insurers’ and homeowners’ outlooks on trying the cases.

So what went wrong here?  

There’s only one way to find out, by contacting me and subscribing to First Party Property Insurance Blog.

Takeaway:

If you want the legal forms and checklists to make your desired jury forms a reality, please message me.


Did this Article Answer Your Homeowners Insurance Question?

If not, then go to our Getting Started page by clicking here, where we have a guide with easy-to-find links to the laws, cases, and articles that will answer your question, or contact me.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Phone Number

Comment

captcha

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims for Water Leaks and Damage, and the Constant or Repeated Seepage Exclusion

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Overview:

What happens when a homeowners insurance company denies a claim for constant or repeated seepage or leakage?

Generally, homeowners insurers’ personnel will look at the damage and, based on (1) experience or (2) an expert opinion, the insurer will determine that it is long term damage that is not covered.

If a person has a roof leak, pipe break, supply line burst, or something else that she thought happened quickly, then she might think the constant or repeated seepage exclusion is unfair.  Depending on (1) the way that the exclusion is written in the policy and (2) the investigation the homeowners insurer conducted, the homeowner might be right.

In this article, you will see what homeowners insurers need to prove that a water leak and its damage are excluded using the constant or repeated seepage exclusion for long term water damage.

So don’t forget to read all the way to the end, contact me, and subscribe.


Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook and Litigation Data Reports:

Before we go on, if you are in the Florida homeowners insurance claims industry and are looking for a guide with the key cases, strategies, laws, attorneys, and adjusters, or if you’re looking for Florida litigation data reports, please visit this page to learn more about our Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook.


Do you think you need to understand this subject? I’d say you should be an expert on it.  

The most common dispute in the Florida homeowners insurance industry is whether water damage is covered or excluded by homeowners insurance.  Florida is a rainy and humid place, so there is plenty of water damage.  The question is whether the damage is sudden or long-term.  You better know the difference.

How do you find out the difference? Read this article to find out how homeowners insurers must prove that damage was excluded by the constant or repeated seepage exclusion.

The Policy

The exclusion has many variations; however, in general, it excludes long term water damage. With respect to the variations, some of these exclusions expressly provide that the seepage must come from within a plumbing, heating, or air system. Others contain language that excludes the leakage “whether hidden or not.” In addition, some describe the exclude time period as “weeks” or “months” whereas others specifically exclude damage that occurs over a period of more than 14 days.

Hoey v. State Farm

The main case on the issue is the Fourth DCA’s 2008 decision in Hoey v. State Farm, 988 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). In Hoey, the Fourth DCA determined that the evidence in the record was enough to show that the insurer was entitled to a judgment that the damage was long term and, therefore, excluded from insurance coverage. By analyzing the steady increase in the water bills for roughly three months, the insurer was able to show that there was a failure in the nylon of the toilet supply line. Contrary to many of the litigated cases on this provision, this case had enough evidence in the insurer’s favor to allow the trial court to determine the insurance company clearly did not cover the damage.

Key Evidence

In cases where summary judgment is not appropriate, juries must decide whether the evidence shows that the leakage occurred for an excluded time period. Naturally, insureds’ and insurers’ attorneys should pay attention to the following factors to assess what the jury will think of the damage:

1. The Photographs

The photographs tell the story and are typically the most important evidence. Do they show staining and warping? For an insurer, it is going to be hard to convince a jury that the water loss was long term if there is no staining or warping of particle board cabinets. For an insured, if the particle board has rings and rings of deep brown stains and appears to be falling apart, then how can he or she convince a jury that the damage happened from a single leak?

The most important photographs will come from the field adjuster and, if the insurer promptly hired an engineer who quickly visited the property, then the engineer should have good photographs. Because these losses often occur in obscure areas of the property (kitchen cabinets, wall space), an insured generally does not have prior photographs of the damaged areas. Ultimately, the photographs will be the most critical evidence in the case.

2. The Water Bills

The water bills also can help guide the parties’ understanding of what happened. If there was a sudden and extreme toilet leak or pipe burst, then, depending on where the burst was, there may be a huge surge in the water bills. If the bills constantly crept up for a few months, however, that might suggest there was a pinhole leak that allowed water to seep out over a long period of time. According to the Fourth DCA, the water bills in Hoey were sufficient to allow the trial court’s finding that the damage was excluded.

3. The Experts

The experts in this field are very skilled and can provide the parties with highly detailed evaluations of an infinite amount of different types of water losses. Many of the experts I deal with rely on the studies done by Dr. Ralph Moon from HSA Engineers.I have worked with Dr. Moon a great deal. He has published volumes of studies showing what each housing material looks like after it has been exposed to water for days or months. The studies are very intricate and detailed, and, in some cases, can even tell you what temperature the water was in your case. There are several other outstanding experts that rely on Mr. Moon’s studies. I find that a lot of these experts are very good at explaining why a particular type of damage had to have been caused by long term seepage.

Despite having handled well over 100 of these types of cases, I have not had the chance to meet any experts in this area that are hired by insureds and their attorneys. I would like to hear their counterarguments to the very well reasoned theories laid out in the water duration studies I mentioned above.

If you would like a copy of any of Dr. Moon’s articles or the names of any of the other highly qualified experts, please feel free to email me. If you handle these types of cases, I highly recommend reading Dr. Moon’s articles and sharing them with your team as soon as possible. As you know, the experts will be responsible for explaining the issue to the jury.

4. The Nature of the Source

To determine whether the damage was long term, the parties have to understand the nature of the event. Was the leak coming from the roof? If so (and so long as there was not a wind event), the only seepage that could have entered must have been rain and other moisture over a period of time. If a slight “leak” caused a substantial amount of damage, that is a strong example of a long term water loss. Was the leak coming from a deficiency in the shower stall or tub surround? One might logically expect that the damage occurred each time the person showered or took a bath. Understanding the exact source of each portion of the loss is crucial to determining whether the source, by its nature, is something that would happen over time or all at once.

5. The Policy

To evaluate the claim, insurers and insureds must also go to the heart of the issue – the insurance policy. Interestingly, and as mentioned above, these policies have many variations. Not only are the excluded durations different, but the sources of the loss can often be different. For example, some policies’ constant or repeated seepage exclusions may exclude long term seepage coming only from within a plumbing, heating, or air conditioning system. If the loss was long term but not from one of those systems (for example, through the roof), then insureds and insurers might need to reevaluate whether the loss was “sudden” or not, which is also required by virtually every homeowners insurance policy. As also noted above, some policies contain language that excludes the damage “whether hidden or not.” This is arguably the first place to look when evaluating one of these claims.

If you are an insured, a claims handler, or an attorney in this field, then you certainly need to understand the significance of these issues. This exclusion is as litigated as any other exclusion in any type of insurance policy. Although this was not meant to be an exhaustive review of the issues, I hope that it helped you in some way. As noted above, if you want any of the materials from Dr. Moon or you want to discuss any of the other experts in the field, please email me.

Takeaway:

At least 60% of your claims and lawsuits are probably water damage claims. It’s time to approach these on a more global level.

  • What if I told you that you could use a system to search your old claims and cases to determine how much the next case will settle for?
  • What if I told you that you could pay for the legal documents for these claims only once?

Well, its no longer 2001, and these systems are freely available.  If you want to know more about the systems we use, or you want free checklists and guides for handling water damage claims, please message me.


Questions?

If you have any questions about this article or anything else Florida homeowners insurance-related, please contact us.

Does a Defense Based on an Insured’s Failure to Submit to an Examination Under Oath Require the Insurer to Show Prejudice?

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

fire 3

*April 30, 2014 Update: I want you to read this article because it has the best explanation of the hotly debated condition precedent vs. condition subsequent issue on this site; however, when you are finished, you need to read this article to learn about the latest developments from courts evaluating what type of condition the EUO provision is.*

If an EUO does not happen, can the insurer move for summary judgment and get an order by simply showing that the insurer requested the EUO and it did not happen? In other words, can an insurer obtain a summary judgment on that issue without pleading and proving prejudice? Yes and no, depending on where in Florida you live.

picture from http://www.florida-lawblog.com/2010/05/examination-under-oath-euo.html

The Fifth DCA is the DCA making some waves. While old news, the Fifth DCA in State Farm Ins. Co. v. Curran held that a failure to appear at a compulsory medical examination was a breach, but maybe not a material breach because the insurer did not plead and prove prejudice. 83 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Following that decision, the Fifth DCA issued another opinion denying an insurer summary judgment based on an insured’s alleged failure to submit to an EUO. Whistler’s Park, Inc. v. FIGA, 90 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). In Whistler’s Park, Inc., the Fifth DCA considered the insured’s arguments that it responded to the insurer’s EUO request by naming a corporate representative to testify at the EUO and promising to produce the documents. The insurer had previously asked the insured to call the insurer to schedule the EUO. Leading up to the summary judgment hearing, the insured continued to offer to submit to the EUO, but did not call to schedule. The Fifth DCA once again held that the insurer’s failure to plead and prove prejudice thwarted its ability to obtain summary judgment on the EUO provision, which they called a condition subsequent. The Fifth DCA said that to show a breach of a condition subsequent was material, the insurer needs to plead and prove prejudice. So we know where the Fifth DCA stands: an insurer must plead and prove prejudice.

No other DCA has expressly taken this position. The Third DCA, however, has denied an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the issue when counsel for the insurer asked improper questions to an insured that the insured refused to answer. De Leon v. Great American Assur. Co., 78 So. 3d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

The Fourth, Fifth, and Second DCAs all have opinions suggesting there is no need to plead and prove prejudice. The Fourth DCA’s decision in Goldman v. State Farm suggests that an insurer does not need to plead prejudice to obtain summary judgment in that jurisdiction. 660 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). However, the Fifth DCA in Curran suggested that a portion of the Goldman decision considered the prejudice issue when it discussed how remanding the case to proceed with the EUO would be fruitless because two years had passed since commencement of the suit. Insurers often point to two other decisions suggesting that prejudice does not need to be pled and proven to obtain summary judgment in the Second and Fifth DCAs. See Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Drummond, 970 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Starling v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 956 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

So the answer to the question posed is, once again, that it appears to depend on the jurisdiction. In November of 2012, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Curran. I am not sure when to expect the Florida Supreme Court to issue the order but hopefully it will shed some light on whether the Fifth DCA is right, or whether the issue will return to a bright line rule. Until the Supreme Court issues its opinion, it might be best to plead and prove prejudice just to be safe.

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook and Litigation Data Reports:

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook

If you are in the Florida homeowners insurance claims industry and are looking for a guide with the key cases, strategies, laws, attorneys, and adjusters, or if you’re looking for Florida litigation data reports, please visit this page to learn more about our Florida Homeowners Insurance Claims and Litigation Handbook.

Questions?

Have any questions about Florida’s homeowners insurers, policies, and claims, please feel free to contact us.