Fayad v. Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 31 March 2005 |
Docket Number | No. SC03-1808.,SC03-1808. |
Citation | 899 So.2d 1082 |
Parties | Carlos FAYAD, et ux., Petitioners, v. CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Harold B. Klite Truppman and Lauri Waldman Ross, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
Guy E.E. Burnette, Jr., and Marc Peoples of Guy E. Burnette, Jr., P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Respondent.
William F. Merlin, Jr. and Mary E. Kestenbaum of Gunn Merlin, P.A., Tampa, FL on behalf of United Policyholders, for Amicus Curiae.
We have for review Fayad v. Clarendon National Insurance Co., 857 So.2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), which expressly and directly conflicts with Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Branch, 234 So.2d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).1 The issue before this Court is whether damages caused by blasting are covered under an all-risk insurance policy that expressly excludes damage caused by earth movement from coverage. As with any other matter involving exclusionary clauses in insurance policies, our decision is governed by the language of the exclusionary provision and well-established principles of insurance contract interpretation. We interpret Clarendon's earth movement exclusion to be limited to earth movement caused by natural events. We conclude that damage caused by a manmade event such as blasting is covered under Clarendon's all-risk insurance policy and does not fall within the earth movement exclusion.
Clarendon insured the home and certain personal property of Carlos and Dora Fayad (the Fayads) through an all-risk insurance policy. While the policy was in effect, the Fayads reported to Clarendon that nearby blasting activities caused structural damage to their home and personal property. Clarendon initially denied coverage in reliance on its exclusion that barred coverage for damage caused by "settlement, shrinkage and thermal effects." Clarendon also based its denial on a finding by its engineering expert that blasting could not have created vibrations strong enough to cause the claimed loss to the Fayads' home and personal property. Clarendon filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage for the Fayads' damages. Subsequently, Clarendon moved for summary judgment but only on the earth movement exclusion in its policy. See Fayad, 857 So.2d at 295. Clarendon assumed for the purposes of summary judgment that the Fayads' damages were caused by blasting. The relevant parts of Clarendon's policy read as follows:
At the hearing on the summary judgment motion, Clarendon relied on State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Castillo, 829 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), in which the Third District Court of Appeal held that the language of a lead-in provision and exclusion in a policy drafted by a different insurer excluded coverage for any loss resulting from earth movement regardless of its cause. Based on the Third District's holding in Castillo, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Clarendon, finding that coverage was precluded under the earth movement exclusion in Clarendon's policy. On appeal, the Fayads argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the policy at issue in Castillo contained language in its earth movement exclusion that was materially different from the language in Clarendon's earth movement exclusion. Although the Third District agreed that the exclusion at issue in Castillo was much broader than Clarendon's exclusion, it concluded as a matter of law that "under the plain language of Clarendon's earth movement exclusion provision, there is no coverage for the claimed losses in this case." Fayad, 857 So.2d at 295-96.
The Fayads sought review in this Court, alleging express and direct conflict with Phoenix, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal, interpreting an earth movement exclusion that was broader than Clarendon's exclusion, concluded that the exclusion was limited to natural events and thus did not exclude damage resulting from blasting activities from coverage. We accepted review to resolve this conflict.
The specific issue we confront is whether the exclusionary clause in this case, which expressly excludes damage resulting from natural disasters such as earthquakes from coverage, also excludes damage from man-made events such as blasting from coverage. Although the question of whether the damage to the Fayads' home was caused by blasting is a question of fact, whether damage caused by blasting comes within the scope of the exclusionary clause is a question of law. Cf. Dimmitt Chevrolet, Inc. v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Corp., 636 So.2d 700, 701 (Fla.1993) ( ); Jones v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 463 So.2d 1153, 1157 (Fla. 1985) (). Thus, we review de novo the Third District's determination that damage from blasting is excluded under the Fayads' all-risk insurance policy. Cf. City of Gainesville v. State, 863 So.2d 138, 143 (Fla.2003) ( ); Panama City Beach Cmty. Redevelopment Agency v. State, 831 So.2d 662, 665 (Fla.2002) ().
Also, de novo review is appropriate because the coverage question was resolved against the Fayads on summary judgment. See Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So.2d 1071, 1074 (Fla.2001) (); Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000) ( ).
The specific type of insurance policy involved in this case is, as in Castillo and Phoenix, an all-risk policy. Unless the policy expressly excludes the loss from coverage, this type of policy provides coverage for all fortuitous loss or damage other than that resulting from willful misconduct or fraudulent acts. See Sun Ins. Office, Ltd. v. Clay, 133 So.2d 735, 739 (Fla.1961); Wallach v. Rosenberg, 527 So.2d 1386, 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (quoting Phoenix, 234 So.2d at 398); Jane Massey Draper, Annotation, Coverage Under All-Risk Insurance, 30 A.L.R. 5th 170, 170 (2004). Although the term "all-risk" is afforded a broad, comprehensive meaning, see Wallach, 527 So.2d at 1388, an "all-risk" policy is not an "all loss" policy, and thus does not extend coverage for every conceivable loss.
In deciding whether an all-risk policy excludes coverage for an insured's claimed damages, we are guided by well-established principles of insurance contract interpretation. We begin with the guiding principle that insurance contracts are construed in accordance with "the plain language of the polic[y] as bargained for by the parties." Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So.2d 29, 33 (Fla.2000) (quoting Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swindal, 622 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla.1993)) (alteration in original). However, if the salient policy language is susceptible to two reasonable interpretations, one providing coverage and the other excluding coverage, the policy is considered ambiguous. See Anderson, 756 So.2d at 34; Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So.2d 161, 165 (Fla.2003). Ambiguous coverage provisions are construed strictly against the insurer that drafted the policy and liberally in favor of the insured. See Anderson, 756 So.2d at 34; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. CTC Dev. Corp., 720 So.2d 1072, 1076 (Fla.1998); Deni Assocs. of Florida, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 711 So.2d 1135, 1138 (Fla.1998). Further, ambiguous "exclusionary clauses are construed even more strictly against the insurer than coverage clauses." Anderson, 756 So.2d at 34; see also Demshar v. AAACon Auto Transport, Inc., 337 So.2d 963, 965 (Fla.1976) (). Thus, the insurer is held responsible for clearly setting forth what damages are excluded from coverage under the terms of the policy.
With regard to earth movement exclusions, there is a distinction between losses caused by natural events, which are often cataclysmic and widespread, and losses caused by man-made events. When losses are caused by human activity, insurers have the opportunity to recover some of the payments made to their insured by asserting subrogation rights against the entity responsible for the activity. See generally Cas. Indem. Exchange v. Penrod Bros., Inc., 632 So.2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) () (quoting Indiana Ins. Co. v. Collins, 359 So.2d 916, 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)); Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Rojas, 409 So.2d 1166,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation
...non-natural in origin or source." COUCH, supra, at § 153:65 (collecting cases); see also id. §§ 153:66-:67; Fayad v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 1082, 1086-89 (Fla.2005); Murray, 509 S.E.2d at 4-5, 10; Peach State Uniform Serv., Inc. v. Am. Ins. Co., 507 F.2d 996, 1000 (5th Cir.1975......
-
In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Lit.
...brought about by natural events and did not apply to damage caused by a manmade event such as blasting. In Fayad v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 1082 (Fla.2005), the court utilized the same principles of insurance contract interpretation noting that "if the salient policy language is......
-
Broom v. Wilson Paving & Excavating, Inc.
...The court held the earth movement exclusion did not preclude coverage in the case. Id. at 240.¶ 37 In Fayad v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 1082 (Fla.2005), nearby blasting activities caused structural damage to the insured's home. The homeowners sought coverage under their all-risk ......
-
Szczeklik v. Markel Int'l Ins. Co., Case No. 8:12–CV–970–T–27TGW.
...favor the insured and against the insurer. Auto–Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So.2d 29, 34 (Fla.2000); see Fayad v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 1082, 1086 (Fla.2005) (“[a]mbiguous coverage provisions are construed strictly against the insurer that drafted the policy and liberally......
-
Chapter 4
...Sullivan v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., 2008 WL 361141 (Del. Super. Feb. 11, 2008). Florida: Fayad v. Clarendon National Insurance Co., 899 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 2005); Liebel v. Nationwide Insurance Company of Florida, 22 So.3d 111 (Fla. App. 2009); Fisher v. Certain Underwriters of Lloyds, 93......
-
CHAPTER 4 First-Party Insurance
...Sullivan v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., 2008 WL 361141 (Del. Super. Feb. 11, 2008). Florida: Fayad v. Clarendon National Insurance Co., 899 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 2005); Liebel v. Nationwide Insurance Company of Florida, 22 So.3d 111 (Fla. App. 2009); Fisher v. Certain Underwriters of Lloyds, 93......
-
Surfside Condo Collapse: a 360-degree Insurance Coverage Analysis
...also concentrate on insurance recovery for policyholders and other complex matters.--------Notes:1. Fayad v. Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 1082, 1086-87 (Fla. 2005).2. See S.O. Beach Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 305 F. Supp. 3d 1359, 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2018); Sandalwood Condo. Ass......
-
Property Insurance Coverage for Emerging Risk: Underground Climate Change
...v. Travelers Indem. Co., 20 N.Y.3d 65 (2012); Powell v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156 (2011); Fayad v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 2005).8. Fayad, 899 So.2d at 1086.9. See id. at 1089.10. See, e.g., Bentoria Holdings, 20 N.Y.3d at 68; Fayad, 899 So.2d at 1087.11. Se......