The Eleventh Circuit has found that the lower court did not err in finding coverage for damages that a condominium complex suffered as a result of Hurricane Irma, nor did the court err in only awarding a fraction of the amount sought by the Condominium Association. The case is St. Louis Condominium Association, Inc. v. Rockhill Ins. Co., No. 19-12716 (11th Cir. July 20, 2021).
On September 10, 2017, Hurricane Irma made landfall in South Florida causing damage to a waterfront condo in Miami. St. Louis Condominium Association, Inc. (the Association) tried to recover damages to the property from the insurer, Rockhill Insurance Company (Rockhill). The proof of loss that the Association submitted claimed damages of $16 million. In contrast, Rockhill's inspection determined the damage was "well below" the hurricane deductible, which required that the damage exceed 3 percent of the total value of the insured building, or $945,342. The Association sued.
After the jury trial, the Association received $2.6 million, a fraction of the $16 million it asked for initially. Both parties were unhappy with the result.
The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the District Court had not erred in striking the testimony of the insurer's expert, given the insurer's unreasonable failure to produce the expert for deposition before the discovery deadlines expired.
Next, the court ruled that the trial court had not erred in denying the insurer's effort to disqualify the expert testimony of the insured's experts, and held that their testimony satisfied the gatekeeping standards set forth by a case called Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The court declined to revisit the lower court's earlier denial of the motion for summary judgment, declaring that it was inappropriate as the case had gone forward through a full trial, and Rockhill failed to properly preserve any challenge to the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court also rejected the Association's cross-appeal, finding that there was adequate evidence to support the jury's finding of pre-existing damage to the condo complex, and that the 3 percent hurricane deductible was not rendered unenforceable because Rockhill failed to obtain approval from the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation under Fla. Stat. 627.701(2).
Editor's Note: Florida's property and casualty (P&C) insurance industry has been struggling to withstand a period of extreme turbulence over the past four years. Not only was the state hit with multiple major hurricanes from 2017-2019, but Florida's legal landscape foreseeably contributed to the storms' litigious aftermath.