NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2005 RONALD D. SEKURA and CAROL SEKURA, Appellants, vs. GRANADA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. ** Opinion filed February 23, 2005. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Luis M. Garcia, Judge. Brooks Hermelee Geffin and Gary S. Brooks and Leonard C. Atkins, IV, for appellants. Mase, Gassenheimer & Lara and Christopher J. Bailey , for appellee. Before COPE, RAMIREZ, and WELLS, JJ. WELLS, Judge. Ronald and Carol Sekura sued builder Reinaldo Soto after the Sekuras learned that the home that they had hired Soto to build ** ** ** ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 00-335 CASE NO. 3D04-377
had been constructed below Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Monroe County elevation requirements and that the County would not remove a Stop Work Order it had placed on the property until the structure was elevated or demolished. Sekuras maintained that Granada Insurance Company The
provided
coverage to Soto for such claims. action against Soto, the
Granada brought a declaratory and others, seeking a
Sekuras
determination as to whether Granada was under a duty to defend and whether the Granada policy provided coverage for the Sekuras' claim. The trial court concluded that Granada did not have the
duty to defend and that Soto's Commercial General Liability policy did not provide coverage for the claim. We agree.
The Sekuras’ claim for the cost of replacement and repair of deficient construction (that is, construction which did not meet FEMA and Monroe County elevation requirements and thus, did not meet requirements of the parties’ contract) was expressly
precluded by the work product, business risk and professional services exclusions contained in Granada’s policy. established that as a matter of public policy, It is well commercial
liability insurance policies, like Granada’s, do not cover claims for defective or deficient workmanship. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.
of America v. Deluxe Systems, Inc. of Florida, 711 So. 2d 1293, 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(construing policy language virtually the same, if not the same, as that of Granada’s policy). This
2
is
because
"the
purpose
of
.
.
.
comprehensive
liability
insurance coverage is to provide protection for personal injury or for property damage caused by the completed product, but not for the replacement and repair of that product.” LaMarche v.
Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 390 So. 2d 325, 326 (Fla. 1980). Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.
3
