A Florida appeals court has upheld a ruling that denies coverage for water damage claims made by homeowners Dale and Cartez Deshazior against Safepoint Insurance Company. The court found that the damage was caused by long-term seepage, which is excluded under the homeowners' insurance policy. This decision affects homeowners who may face similar disputes with their insurance providers regarding coverage for water damage.
The case, Dale Deshazior and Cartez Deshazior v. Safepoint Insurance Company, was filed in the District Court of Appeal of Florida under docket number 3D18-2414. The dispute arose after the Deshazior family's property sustained water damage in August 2015. They claimed the damage was due to a sudden leak in their bathroom, but Safepoint denied the claim, asserting that the damage was the result of long-term seepage, which is specifically excluded in their policy.
The insureds hired a restoration company to mitigate the damage but did not report the claim to Safepoint immediately. When the insurance company eventually received the claim, they sent out two independent claims adjusters and a forensic engineer to assess the damage. Their investigation revealed that the damage appeared to have been caused by a slow leak and a failure to maintain the plumbing in the affected area. The insureds filed a claim for $35,977.32, which Safepoint denied based on the policy's exclusion for slow leaks.
The Deshazior family then sued Safepoint for breach of contract, arguing that the damage was caused by a sudden and accidental water discharge. Safepoint countered by asserting that the policy's exclusion for “constant or repeated seepage or leakage” barred the claim. The trial court agreed with Safepoint and granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company.
In its ruling, the court stated, “the claimed loss falls within the policy’s exclusion provision.” The judges on the panel included Chief Judge EMAS and Judges FERNANDEZ and HENDON. The court reviewed the evidence presented during the summary judgment hearing, which included expert opinions regarding the duration of the leak.
During the hearing, the Deshazior family attempted to argue that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the damage was caused by a sudden leak or a long-term issue. However, the court found that the evidence supported Safepoint's position that the damage was due to long-term seepage. The court noted that the insureds' expert, plumber Rafael Leyva, had initially been unable to determine the duration of the leak during his deposition but later submitted an affidavit contradicting his earlier testimony. The trial court excluded this affidavit, citing legal precedent that a party cannot contradict prior sworn testimony to create a jury issue.
The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the insurer to demonstrate that the cause of the loss is excluded from coverage. In this case, the court found that Safepoint met this burden, and the Deshazior family failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the damage was not caused by an excluded event.
This ruling has significant implications for homeowners and insurance companies alike. It reinforces the importance of understanding the specific terms and exclusions in insurance policies, particularly regarding water damage claims. Homeowners may need to be more diligent in maintaining their properties and promptly reporting any damage to avoid potential disputes with their insurers.
Furthermore, the decision highlights the challenges that insured parties may face when contesting an insurer's denial of coverage. It underscores the necessity for homeowners to provide clear and consistent evidence to support their claims, especially in cases involving complex issues like the duration of water damage.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether the Deshazior family will seek to appeal the court's decision. The court filing did not indicate any pending related cases, but the ruling may influence future cases involving similar disputes over water damage and insurance coverage. As homeowners navigate the complexities of insurance claims, this case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of understanding policy exclusions and maintaining clear communication with insurance providers.