• Home
  • About Us
    • Our History & Accomplishments
    • Our Leader
    • LMA Gives
    • Photo Gallery
    • Library & Resources
  • Services
    • Assignment of Benefits & Insurance Litigation
    • Associations & Nonprofits
    • Business Development & Procurement
    • Education
    • Energy & Environment
    • Emergency Management
    • Flood Insurance & Resilience
    • Healthcare
    • Insurance/Financial Services
    • Legislative & Regulatory Monitoring
    • Marketing Intelligence
    • Property & Casualty Insurance
    • Public Relations
  • News / Podcasts / Library
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our History & Accomplishments
    • Our Leader
    • LMA Gives
    • Photo Gallery
    • Library & Resources
  • Services
    • Assignment of Benefits & Insurance Litigation
    • Associations & Nonprofits
    • Business Development & Procurement
    • Education
    • Energy & Environment
    • Emergency Management
    • Flood Insurance & Resilience
    • Healthcare
    • Insurance/Financial Services
    • Legislative & Regulatory Monitoring
    • Marketing Intelligence
    • Property & Casualty Insurance
    • Public Relations
  • News / Podcasts / Library
  • Contact
  • MENU

RumbergerKirk Win: Limited Water Damage Endorsement

SHARE THIS

by Robert P. Barton, Esq.

Robert P. Barton, Esq. Courtesy, RumbergerKirk

For years, in an effort to limit exposure in water damage claims, insurance carriers have been introducing limited water damage endorsements into their policies.  Most endorsements limit coverage to $10,000 for damage caused by water.  Historically, insurance companies have had mixed results in the enforcement of these endorsements, with some courts finding them either vague, ambiguous, or expressly do not include the cost of tear out and/or other policy benefits.

In more recent policies, carriers have begun including two water damage endorsements—one that excludes all water damage in the policy resulting from a plumbing system (“Exclusion Endorsement”), and another that rolls coverage back on, but limits liability to $10,000 (“Coverage Endorsement”).  Importantly, the Fourth District Court of Appeal recently found a typical Exclusion Endorsement to be clear and unambiguous. See Dorothy Archer v. Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D656a, 2021 WL 1115386 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 24, 2021).  The court applied the Exclusion Endorsement against the insured and affirmed final summary judgment in favor of Tower Hill.  It follows that, if an Exclusion Endorsement applies, the only way an insured can recover for water damage would be if another endorsement rolls coverage back on.  This is where Coverage Endorsements come into play.

In Lightfoot v. Security First Insurance Company, the carrier had both an Exclusion Endorsement and Coverage Endorsement in its policy.  The loss was caused by water damage from within a plumbing system, and the carrier tendered the $10,000 limit.  The insureds then filed suit, seeking payment for damages in excess of $10,000, including tear out and other policy benefits.  The carrier immediately filed a motion for final summary judgment.  At the hearing, the insureds argued the Coverage Endorsement was unclear as to whether debris removal, build back, or tear out coverages were included.  The carrier used the Archer case as a building block to support its argument that, like the Exclusion Endorsement, the Coverage Endorsement was also unambiguous.  The court agreed, relying in part on Archer, finding:

[T]he Court finds the Exclusion Endorsement is clear and unambiguous and applies to exclude Plaintiffs’ plumbing leak claim. However, the Policy’s Coverage Endorsement rolls coverage back on . . .The only coverage afforded for damage caused by water in this case is that which is expressly stated within the Coverage Endorsement. Because Defendant has met its limit of liability under the Coverage Endorsement in this case, no additional payments are due under the Policy.

Notably, the court found the “only coverage afforded for damage caused by water . . . is that which is expressly stated within the Coverage Endorsement.”  That is because the Exclusion Endorsement rid the policy of all coverage for water damage.  Thus, any coverage for the loss was limited by the express terms of the Coverage Endorsement.  This ruling provides a welcomed break from previous trial court rulings that have invalidated water damage endorsements.  Moving forward, where appropriate, carriers could use the steps outlined above when seeking summary judgment in similar cases.

Robert P. Barton is an Associate with the RumbergerKirk law firm with offices in Tampa, Orlando, Miami, Tallahassee, and Birmingham.  Robert represents insurance companies in coverage disputes and bad faith claims in both state and federal courts.  He assists clients in cases involving homeowners, automobile, and commercial general liability policies and payment disputes.  Robert can be reached at the Tampa office at [email protected].

LMA Newsletter of 5-17-21

SHARE THIS

Tags: Claims Litigation, Insurance Litigation, Robert Barton, Rumberger Kirk, RumbergerKirk, Water Damage Endorsement

“Just wanted to say that I thoroughly love your newsletter. It’s is always informative and insightful to the ins and outs of our industry.  You are an inspiration and an important asset in the insurance world.  Keep up the great work!” 

Cynthia Scott, President
University Insurance Group
Davie, FL

“I have followed your weekly newsletter and podcasts and now have a full appreciation for what you bring to this industry.  You are an inspiring force, plain and simple.  I wanted you to know that you make a difference.  Thank you for all you do!”

Jeffrey Karam, CPCU
Bradenton, FL

“Your newsletter is fabulous!  I greatly appreciate the topics you expose, so that insurance professionals like myself can keep up with the latest events that affect the public we serve and ourselves.”

Cynthia Hoehn, Independent Property & Casualty Personal Lines insurance agent
Clermont, FL

“Another great Newsletter on Florida industry this week.  Your service and advocacy in Florida is very important to keeping me updated and apprised of the Florida insurance laws, trends and overall environment.  Something similar is very much needed in Louisiana, too.”

Jennifer Tedesco, Esq., Claims Director
Pharos Claims Services
Orlando, FL

“Lisa this is another great newsletter, and we appreciate the time and energy you put into these informative updates – you are on top of these topics!”

Mike Graham, CEO
Smart Vent Products, Floodproofing.com, & Risk Reduction Plus
Juno Beach, FL

“Lisa Miller is a true champion for the insurance industry, with her regular updates! We appreciate all you do and keeping us up to date on priority issues!”

Gillian Lloyd, Account Executive
Zywave
Milwaukee, WI

“Great article on Risk Rating 2.0!”

Austin Perez, Senior Policy Representative for Federal Housing, Valuation, Insurance and Commercial Issues
National Association of Realtors
Washington, D.C.

“Thank you Lisa for staying on top of, as well as advocating, for Florida residents and legislative reform. Your newsletters are very informative and enjoy reading the points of view.”  

Shawna Miller, Sr. Claims Quality Assurance & Compliance Manager
Florida Peninsula Insurance Company
Jacksonville, FL

“Just a quick note to let you know how much I have appreciated your newsletter over the years and the assistance they offer for those in the field of claims. We depend on the information more than you will ever know!”

Laurie Rasberry, Chief Claims Officer
Acorn Claims
Prosper, Texas

GET THE LATEST UPDATES IN YOUR INBOX FOR FREE!

SUBSCRIBE NOW

READ THE LATEST LMA NEWSLETTER ONLINE NOW

READ NOW

331 N. Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850) 222-1041
[email protected]

*DBE certified through affiliate Lisa Miller Consultants

© Copyright 2008 - 2023
Lisa Miller Associates
All Rights Reserved
Managed by SiteBolts