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
[[Image here]]
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;
[[Image here]]
(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. 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 Mar-tinezes’ motion for summary judgment.
The issue on appeal is whether the Water Exclusion provision excludes the Mar-tinezes’ losses from coverage. We review a lower court’s interpretation of an insurance policy de novo. Fayad v. Clarendon Nat’l Ins. Co.,
Insurance policies are construed in accordance with the plain language of the policy and must be read as a whole, giving each provision its full meaning. See Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co.,
Insurance policies may contain exclusionary provisions that exclude certain risks from the scope of coverage, and exclusionary provisions may carve out coverage exceptions for losses that ensue from an excluded cause of loss. See Swire,
Although there are no Florida cases on point, courts in New York and South Carolina have interpreted similar anti-concurrent cause provisions and applied those provisions to analogous facts. For example, in Jahier v. Liberty Mutual Group,
The insurer denied coverage based on earth movement and water damage exclusions in the policy. Id. The policy also contained an anti-concurrent cause provision that provided that the policy did not cover losses caused “directly or indirectly ... by water damage, meaning ... water below the surface of the ground, including water which exerts pressure on ... a ... swimming pool or other structure.” Id. at 286. Losses due to water damage were excluded “regardless of any other cause or
Similarly, in South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Durham,
Here, we agree with Liberty: Under the policy’s plain language, the damage to the Martinezes’ pool deck, rock garden, and waterfall was not an ensuing loss. Rather, the policy expressly excluded the Martinezes’ loss as it specifically excluded losses that occurred directly or indirectly from subsurface water pressure. In our view, the damage to the deck, rock garden, and waterfall resulted, directly or indirectly, from subsurface water pressure. Accordingly, we need not look to the ensuing-loss provision.
Finding the insurance policy excluded the loss, we reverse the summary final judgment and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Liberty.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Notes
. Neither party disputes that the policy contains an anti-concurrent cause provision. An anti-concurrent cause provision is a provision in a first-party insurance policy that provides that when a covered cause and noncovered cause combine to cause a loss, all losses directly and indirectly caused by those events are excluded from coverage. See Paulucci v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,
Absent an anti-concurrent cause provision, when independent covered and noncovered causes of loss combine to produce a loss, the loss is covered under the concurrent cause doctrine. See Wallach v. Rosenberg,
. Although the Martinezes initially presented claims for damage to the pool shell, pool deck, rock garden, and waterfall, they conceded below that the Water Exclusion provision prevents recovery for the pool shell.