Herrington v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd's London
Decision Date | 29 June 2022 |
Docket Number | 4D21-1669 |
Parties | Charles HERRINGTON, Appellant, v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ronald P. Weil of the Weil Law Firm, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
Clinton D. Flagg and Carol A. Fenello of the Law Offices of Clinton D. Flagg, Miami, for appellee.
An insured homeowner appeals a summary judgment in favor of the insurer finding that a property insurance policy endorsement limited his losses for water damage to $5,000. Insured claims that the endorsement's limitation did not extend to "tear out" expenses incurred as a result of the water damage. We affirm, finding that the endorsement covered all such losses arising out of water damage.
Insured suffered damage to his home caused by a water pipe leak. Insurer capped coverage for insured's water loss at $5,000 based on a policy endorsement known as the "water damage aggregate limitation." That endorsement provided as follows:
(Emphasis added).
The "tear out" provision in the policy, relied upon by insured for coverage, provides as follows:
(Emphasis added).
As noted above, the trial court granted insurer's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the "Water Damage Aggregate Limitation" capped the amount insurer was required to pay for all losses arising out of water damage, including tear out damages. Insured appeals that summary judgment.
"[C]ontracts should be interpreted to give effect to all provisions." City of Homestead v. Johnson , 760 So. 2d 80, 84 (Fla. 2000) (citing Sugar Cane Growers Coop. of Fla., Inc. v. Pinnock , 735 So. 2d 530, 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ). "[I]nsurance contracts are interpreted according to the plain language of the policy except ‘when a genuine inconsistency, uncertainty, or ambiguity in meaning remains after resort to the ordinary rules of construction.’ " Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. , 913 So. 2d 528, 532 (Fla. 2005) (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pridgen , 498 So. 2d 1245, 1248 (Fla. 1986) ). Moreover, "a single policy provision should not be read in isolation and out of context, for the contract is to be construed according to its entire terms, as set forth in the policy and amplified by the policy application, endorsements, or riders." Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Pitu, Inc. , 95 So. 3d 290, 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mashburn , 15 So. 3d 701, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ). "Courts must ‘construe contracts in such a way as to give reasonable meaning to all provisions,’ rather than leaving part of the contract useless." Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Wilder Corp. of Del. , 876 So. 2d 652, 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (quoting Hardwick Props., Inc. v. Newbern , 711 So. 2d 35, 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) ).
However, "[t]he law in Florida is clear that to the extent an endorsement is inconsistent with the body of the policy, the endorsement controls." Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hradecky , 208 So. 3d 184, 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (citing Family Care Ctr., P.A. v. Truck Ins. Exch. , 875 So. 2d 750, 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ). "Even if there were an ambiguity between the endorsement and the body of the policy, the endorsement, which is clear, controls." Family Care , 875 So. 2d at 752 (citations omitted); see also Steuart Petroleum Co., Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London , 696 So. 2d 376, 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) ( ).
In Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Pitu, Inc. , the Third District construed an endorsement with very similar language:
In consideration of the premium charged, it is hereby understood and agreed that for such insurance as is afforded by this policy, loss(es) paid arising out of, or caused by, water damage shall be subject to a maximum amount of $25,000 during the policy term.
95 So. 3d at 293 (emphasis added). The court found this endorsement to be clear and unambiguous in its limitation of coverage for those losses covered by the policy to $25,000. In a footnote, the court explained the breadth of the use of the term "arising out of":
"The term ‘arising out...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Panettieri v. People's Trust Ins. Co.
...concur.--------Notes:1 We note that in one of our recent opinions, Herrington v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd's London , No. 4D21-1669, 342 So.3d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA June 29, 2022), we also discussed tear out coverage. However, in that case, we were not tasked with determining whether tear o......
- Montalvo v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.