In its decision, the district courtfound that the undisputed evidence showed that the wind-driven rainof Hurricane Irma had entered the property due to deterioration ofthe roof coverings and waterproofing sealants, deficient roofrepairs, and a general lack of maintenance of the roof surface, aswell as wear and tear, deterioration, and inadequate maintenance ofwindow and door perimeter sealant and stucco finishes. (Photo: AlexWroblewski/Bloomberg)

A federal district court in Florida has granted summary judgmentin favor of an insurer in a case in which a property owner soughtcoverage for water damage to its building from Hurricane Irma.

The case

GBS Investment Group asserted that property it owned in Miamihad suffered water damage "due to a roof leak, caused bywind-driven rain." It notified its insurer, United SpecialtyInsurance Company, and sought coverage and payment for the damagein the amount of $175,045.01.

United Specialty retained an engineer, Estuardo Terraza, toinspect the property to determine the cause and extent ofdamage.

He concluded that the reported damage had been caused bylong-term rainwater/moisture entering through the building envelopeas a result of wind, wear and tear, and deterioration to the roofcoverings and waterproofing sealants, deficient roof repairs,and a general lack of maintenance of the roofsurface, as well as wear and tear, deterioration, andinadequate maintenance of window and door perimeter sealant andstucco finishes.

Terraza also determined that the property exhibitedevidence of wind damage to the roof, which was likely the result ofHurricane Irma.

United Specialty later retained a meteorological expert whoopined that GBS' property had probably experienced high wind gustsand heavy rainfall associated with the passage of HurricaneIrma.

Thereafter, United Specialty denied coverage for the GBS claim,reasoning that the damage had been caused by wind-driven rain thatwas not covered by the policy — and that was specifically excludedby the policy.

GBS sued United Specialty for breach of contract. It retainedits own expert, Rafael Leyva, a Florida licensed generalcontractor, to inspect and evaluate the damage. In a sworndeclaration, Leyva confirmed that Hurricane Irma had caused debristo strike and damage the roofing system, resulting in moisture andrainwater entering the interior of the property.

United Specialty moved for summary judgment. United Specialtymaintained that the water damage to the GBS property was notcovered under the policy because the limitations andexclusion sections of the United Specialty policy specificallyexcluded coverage for damage caused by rain from any source,whether driven by wind or not.

For its part, GBS cited to its expert's declarationthat the GBS property had experienced water damage due to HurricaneIrma.

The district court's decision

The district court granted the motion.

In its decision, the district court found that the undisputedevidence showed that the wind-driven rain of Hurricane Irma hadentered the property due to deterioration of the roof coverings andwaterproofing sealants, deficient roof repairs, and a general lackof maintenance of the roof surface, as well as wear andtear, deterioration, and inadequate maintenance of window and doorperimeter sealant and stucco finishes.

The district court found that the limitations and exclusionssections of the United Specialty policy "clearly and unambiguously"excluded coverage for water intrusion caused by wind-driven rainand that GBS had not demonstrated any issue of fact as to whetherHurricane Irma had caused the damage.

The district court concluded that the damage identified by GBSwas specifically excluded from coverage and that any resultingdamage did not satisfy an exception to the water intrusionlimitation or exclusions.

The case is GBS Investment Group v. United Specialty Ins.Co., No. 18-23310-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN (S.D. Fla. Oct. 31,2019).

Related:

• Failure to file proof of loss doomed claimfor hurricane damage
• Increased water damage claims fuel newclaims technology
• Court: Insured cannot recover for a loss asa third-party beneficiary

This article first appeared on sister-site Law.com.