Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 5D13–2683.
| Decision Date | 13 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D13–2683.,5D13–2683. |
| Citation | 157 So.3d 486 |
| Parties | LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Nigel MARTINEZ and Melissa Martinez, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
157 So.3d 486
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant
v.
Nigel MARTINEZ and Melissa Martinez, Appellees.
No. 5D13–2683.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Feb. 13, 2015.
Scot E. Samis and William G. Hyland, Jr., of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, St. Petersburg, for Appellant.
Thomas Andrew Player, of The Nation Law Firm, Longwood, for Appellees.
Opinion
COHEN, J.
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty”) appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of its insureds, Nigel and Melissa Martinez. We reverse.
The facts of this case are undisputed. Liberty issued an all-risk insurance policy to the Martinezes insuring, inter alia, their residence and other structures located on their property. During a tropical storm, Nigel Martinez partially emptied his family's in-ground swimming pool because it was overflowing. The following day, he discovered that the pool had lifted out of the ground. As would be later agreed upon by experts, subsurface water accumulated underneath the pool during the storm, which exerted hydrostatic pressure on the partially emptied pool. This pressure caused the pool shell to lift out of the ground, damaging the shell as well as the pool deck, rock garden, and waterfall.
Thereafter, the Martinezes filed a claim with Liberty, which was denied on the ground that the Water Exclusion provision in the policy excluded damage caused by hydrostatic pressure from coverage. That provision provides:
SECTION I—EXCLUSIONS
1. We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.1
....
c. Water Damage,meaning:
(1) Flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of a body of water, or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind;
....
(3) Water below the surface of the ground, including water which exerts pressure on or seeps or leaks through a building, sidewalk, driveway, foundation, swimming pool or other structure.
(Emphasis added).
In response, the Martinezes filed suit for breach of contract and argued, inter alia, that their damage was covered under the ensuing-loss provision in the policy.2 That provision provides:
2. We do not insure for loss to property described in Coverages A and B caused by any of the following. However, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered.
a. Weather conditions. However, this exclusion only applies if weather conditions contribute in any way with a cause or event excluded in paragraph 1. above to produce the loss;
Both sides moved for summary judgment. The trial court found that the direct cause of the Martinezes' damage was the pool shell coming out of the ground, rather than the hydrostatic pressure. Accordingly, the court found that the damages were ensuing losses covered by the policy, denied Liberty's motion for summary judgment, and granted the Martinezes' motion for summary judgment.
The issue on appeal is whether the Water Exclusion provision excludes the Martinezes' losses from coverage. We review a lower court's interpretation of an insurance policy de novo. Fayad v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 1082, 1085 (Fla.2005).
Insurance policies are construed in accordance with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People's Trust Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 3D18-742
...Elec. Power Co. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 72 F.Supp.2d 441, 445 (D. Vt. 1999) ); Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 157 So.3d 486, 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ("An ensuing loss is a loss that occurs separate from but as a result of an excluded loss."); Peek v. Am. Int......
-
Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Floyd
...language of the policies as bargained for by the parties and must read the contracts as a whole. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 157 So.3d 486, 488 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015). Further, courts interpret policy ambiguities liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the i......
-
Citizens Prop. Ins., Corp. v. Salkey
...to cause a loss, all losses directly and indirectly caused by those events are excluded from coverage." Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 157 So.3d 486, 487 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). In Sebo II, the supreme court contemplated that it would have applied the efficient-proximate-cause doc......
-
Hatch v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co.
..."parties may contract around the concurrent cause doctrine with an anti-concurrent cause provision." Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 157 So. 3d 486, 487 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Paulucci v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 190 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1319 (M.D. Fla. 2002). The Policy contains ......