The Third District Court of Appeal in Florida has upheld a ruling in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, denying coverage for property damage caused by off-site blasting vibrations. The decision affects homeowners who may be facing similar issues with insurance claims related to earth movement. The ruling clarifies how insurance policies interpret exclusions for earth movement damage.
The case, Lazaro Hernandez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (Docket No. 3D19-0156), centers around a claim made by homeowner Lazaro Hernandez. Hernandez alleged that his house suffered damage, including cracks in the walls and flooring, due to vibrations from blasting activities occurring off-site. After filing a claim with Citizens, he hired an engineer to assess the damage. The engineer concluded that the damage was indeed caused by soil movement due to the vibrations from the blasting.
Citizens Property Insurance denied the claim and sought summary judgment, arguing that the damage fell under the earth-movement exclusion in the insurance policy. The trial court agreed, granting Citizens' motion for summary judgment. This ruling stated that the policy’s exclusion did not cover indirect damage caused by earth movement triggered by off-site explosions.
The court's opinion, delivered by Judge Hendon, emphasized that summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact. The court reviewed the insurance policy and found that it unambiguously excluded coverage for damage caused by earth movement, regardless of the cause. The opinion noted, “The policy states that there is no coverage for damage caused by earth movement ‘unless direct loss by explosion ensues.’ Here, the earth movement did not cause explosion or fire damage to the property.”
Judge Hendon further explained that the policy included a lead-in provision stating, “We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following,” which expanded the scope of the exclusion. This provision meant that any loss resulting from earth movement was excluded from coverage, regardless of the cause. The court referenced a previous case, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Castillo, to support its interpretation of the policy.
The court concluded that the evidence presented to the trial court, including the engineer’s report, clearly indicated that the damage was caused by earth movement due to off-site blasting vibrations. The ruling stated that the policy’s terms, which excluded “earth sinking, rising, or shifting” and “settling, cracking, or expansion of the foundation,” unequivocally precluded coverage in this case.
This decision has significant implications for homeowners in Florida who may face similar situations with their insurance claims. It clarifies that insurance companies can deny coverage for damage caused by earth movement, especially when the policy includes a lead-in provision that excludes coverage regardless of the cause. Homeowners should be aware of the specific terms and exclusions in their insurance policies, particularly regarding earth movement and related damages.
Moving forward, this ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving insurance claims related to earth movement. Homeowners may need to consider the language in their insurance policies carefully and understand the limitations of coverage when it comes to damage caused by external factors such as blasting.
As for what’s next, it is unclear if Hernandez plans to appeal the ruling or if there are related cases pending. The court filing did not provide further details on potential appeals or additional litigation.