A Florida appellate court recently held that it is not unambiguously clear whether a policy provision excluding losses caused by constant or repeated seepage or leakage over a period of 14 or more days also excludes losses caused by constant or repeated leakage or seepage over a period of less than 14 days. Hicks v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Fla., 2018 WL 1020272 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 23, 2018).
The insured submitted a claim under its all-risks homeowner's policy for damage as a result of a supply line leak. The insurer retained an expert who determined that the leak had been ongoing for five weeks or more. The insurer denied the claim based on an exclusion that precluded coverage for damage caused by "[c]onstant or repeated seepage or leakage of water ... over a period of fourteen (14) or more days." The insured sued for breach of contract. The insurer moved for summary judgment, arguing that because the leak occurred over a period of more than 14 days, the provision excluded coverage for the loss. The insured filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing damage occurring within the first 13 days were covered. The trial court granted summary judgment in the insurer's favor. The insured appealed.
On appeal, the insured argued that the exclusion applied only to losses "caused by water damage occurring on day 14 and onward." The appellate court held, in light of the general principle that policy provisions susceptible to more than one interpretation should be construed in favor of coverage and strictly against an insurer, that the constant or repeated seepage exclusion did not unambiguously exclude losses caused by leakage or seepage over a period of 13 days or less. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court to enter partial summary judgment in the insured's favor on the issue of coverage within the first 13 days of the leak.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
