Going back to the statement:
“The Coverage Endorsement in Lightfoot made no mention of tear out, debris removal, or the like.”
In your opinion, would the ruling be different if the coverage endorsement HAD included coverage for these additional services? Regardless of the coverage, the carrier paid out the full limit of $10,000.
I do not believe the inclusion of tear out language would have, or should have, changed the outcome of the case. The tear out language would be redundant in my opinion. In fact, there was a recent order issued out of Florida’s Federal Southern District that held exactly that. In Yanes, the court found a water damage endorsement to be clear and unambiguous, and include the cost of tear out where tear out was not specifically mentioned in the Coverage Endorsement. See Yanes v. Nat’l Specialty Ins. Co., No. 1:20-cv-21179-KMM (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2021). Although not binding on Florida courts, it is surely persuasive. In any event, like you said, the carrier already paid out the limit if liability under the Coverage Endorsement in this case. Hope this helps.
Recognizing that some geographical locations experience major risk characteristic differences, basic water damage from plumbing fixtures has been a standard coverage for decades. What is the justification for taking it away, or placing such extremely low limits on it now?
One agency’s experience is nothing to generalize by, but in 65 years, we may have had 20 or 40 of these types of claims, but only two exceeded $30,000, and never pushed our loss ratios over 30%. I’ve read the Homeowners market in FL was a wreck due to hurricanes and sink holes, but this doesn’t make sense unless the insurers are offering customers various options for added cost; $5,000 = $100, $10,000 = $200, $20,000 = $325, $40,000 = $700, etc.? For those of us who are not involved in the FL market, this seems strange.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Going back to the statement:
“The Coverage Endorsement in Lightfoot made no mention of tear out, debris removal, or the like.”
In your opinion, would the ruling be different if the coverage endorsement HAD included coverage for these additional services? Regardless of the coverage, the carrier paid out the full limit of $10,000.
I do not believe the inclusion of tear out language would have, or should have, changed the outcome of the case. The tear out language would be redundant in my opinion. In fact, there was a recent order issued out of Florida’s Federal Southern District that held exactly that. In Yanes, the court found a water damage endorsement to be clear and unambiguous, and include the cost of tear out where tear out was not specifically mentioned in the Coverage Endorsement. See Yanes v. Nat’l Specialty Ins. Co., No. 1:20-cv-21179-KMM (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2021). Although not binding on Florida courts, it is surely persuasive. In any event, like you said, the carrier already paid out the limit if liability under the Coverage Endorsement in this case. Hope this helps.
Recognizing that some geographical locations experience major risk characteristic differences, basic water damage from plumbing fixtures has been a standard coverage for decades. What is the justification for taking it away, or placing such extremely low limits on it now?
One agency’s experience is nothing to generalize by, but in 65 years, we may have had 20 or 40 of these types of claims, but only two exceeded $30,000, and never pushed our loss ratios over 30%. I’ve read the Homeowners market in FL was a wreck due to hurricanes and sink holes, but this doesn’t make sense unless the insurers are offering customers various options for added cost; $5,000 = $100, $10,000 = $200, $20,000 = $325, $40,000 = $700, etc.? For those of us who are not involved in the FL market, this seems strange.