157 So. 3d 486
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Liberty Mutual issued an all-risk homeowner policy covering the Martinezes' residence and structures, including a swimming pool.
- After a tropical storm, Nigel Martinez partially drained the in-ground pool; subsurface water accumulated and exerted hydrostatic pressure, lifting the pool shell out of the ground and damaging the shell, pool deck, rock garden, and waterfall.
- Liberty denied the claim, relying on a Water Exclusion that excluded "water below the surface of the ground, including water which exerts pressure on ... a ... swimming pool or other structure," and an anti-concurrent cause provision.
- The Martinezes sued for breach of contract, arguing the ensuing-loss provision covered the deck, rock garden, and waterfall because the direct loss was the pool shell coming out of the ground.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Martinezes, finding the deck/landscape damage was an ensuing loss; Liberty appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy's Water Exclusion (including water below ground exerting pressure) bars coverage for damage to pool deck, rock garden, and waterfall | Martinezes: Damage to deck/landscape is an ensuing loss from the pool shell coming out of the ground and thus covered under the ensuing-loss clause | Liberty: Policy expressly excludes losses caused directly or indirectly by subsurface water pressure; anti-concurrent cause language bars coverage regardless of sequence or concurrent causes | Court: Reversed trial court; the Water Exclusion applies and excludes the losses (not an ensuing loss) |
Key Cases Cited
- Fayad v. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co., 899 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 2005) (standard of review and policy interpretation principles)
- Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So.2d 161 (Fla. 2003) (policies read as a whole; ensuing-loss principles)
- Jahier v. Liberty Mutual Group, 64 A.D.3d 683 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) (hydrostatic pressure forced pool out of ground; water-damage exclusion applied)
- South Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Durham, 380 S.C. 506 (S.C. 2010) (similar facts; water-exclusion barred coverage for pool-related damage)
- Paulucci v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 190 F. Supp.2d 1312 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (explaining anti-concurrent cause provisions and contracting around concurrent-cause doctrine)