Gonzalez v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance
981 F. Supp. 2d 1219
M.D. Fla.2013Background
- The dispute centers on how to interpret the insurance policy’s phrase “structural damage to the building” in a sinkhole loss context.
- Plaintiffs argue that “structural damage to the building” means any damage to the building, regardless of its impact on stability.
- Liberty Mutual contends that “structural” modifies “damage” to limit coverage to damage affecting structural integrity.
- The court surveys state and federal authorities that defined or interpreted “structural damage” in prior cases and statutes.
- Historically, Florida courts and later the legislature debated whether “structure” and “building” are interchangeable in this context.
- In 2011 Florida amended § 627.706(2) to add a five-part, technical definition of “structural damage,” clarifying the term for sinkhole and related claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of structural damage to the building | Plaintiffs: structural damage means any damage to the building. | Liberty Mutual: structural damage means damage impairing structural integrity. | Means damage impairing structural integrity. |
| Interchangeability of structure and building | Plaintiffs rely on structure/building interchangeability to equate the terms. | Defendant argues interchangeable use is flawed; context matters. | Interchangeability is limited; context governs meaning. |
| Effect of the 2011 statutory definition | Plaintiffs contend the plain meaning aligns with broader “damage to the structure.” | Defendant contends the 2011 five-part definition narrows or clarifies the standard. | Court declines full application of the 2011 definition for the case; relies on plain-meaning with scope to be tested later. |
| Legislative history and policy objectives | Plaintiffs leverage prior caselaw to equate structural damage with any damage to the building. | Defendant emphasizes legislative intent to limit sinkhole claims and clarify definitions. | Legislative history supports a construction avoiding wholesale equivalence of the terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amend v. McCabe, 664 So.2d 1183 (La. 1995) (structural damage concerns the building's structural integrity)
- Robertson v. Odom, 296 S.W.3d 151 (Tex.App.2009) (defining structural in context; not all repairs are structural)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp., 386 F.2d 413 (3d Cir.1967) (distinguishes structural repairs from non-structural repairs)
- Bay Farms Corp. v. Great American Insurance Co., 835 F.Supp.2d 1227 (M.D. Fla.2011) (statutory interpretation of structural damage in sinkhole claims)
- New Hampshire Indem. Co. v. Scott, 910 F.Supp.2d 1341 (M.D. Fla.2012) (newly clarified plain-meaning assessment in insurance policy interpretation)