The S.O. Beach Corp. et al v. Great American Insurance Company of New York, No. 1:2017cv22254 - Document 125 (S.D. Fla. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 4/10/2018. (da00)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
The S.O. Beach Corp. et al v. Great American Insurance Company of New York Doc. 125 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SO UTH ERN D ISTRICT O F FLORIDA M iam iD ivision C ase N um ber:17-22254-C IV -M O RE NO THE S.O.BEACH CORP.and LARIOS ON TH E BEA CH ,IN C., Plaintiffs, VS. GREA T A M ERICA N IN SUR AN CE CO M PAN Y OF N EW YO RK , Defendant. ORDER G RANTING DEFENDANT'S M OTIO N FOR SUM M ARY JUDGM EN T AN D DENYING PLAINTIFFS'M O TIO N FOR PARTIAL SUM M ARY JUDGM ENT - - 1. INTRODUCTION A s a result of a lingering insurance coverage dispute, the S.O . Beach Corporation and Larios on the Beach,Inc.filed this action againstGreatAm erican lnsurance Com pany ofNew Y ork,seeking coverage for dam age to theirM iam iBeach property. Follow ing discovery,G reat American filed a motion forsummary judgment,arguing thatthe applicable insurance policy provides no coverage for the alleged property dam age. Plaintiffs filed a cross-m otion forpartial summaryjudgmentasto GreatAmerican'scoveragedefenses,contending thatthe alleged loss m aterialized during the policy period.Forthe reasons discussed below , GreatAm erican's m otion forsummaryjudgmentisGRANTED and Plaintiffs'motion forpartialsummary judgmentis DEN IED . lI. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The S.O .Beach Corporation and Larios on the Beach, Inc.own a three-story building (iltheBuildinf')on M iamiBeaeh'siconicOcean Drive.TheBuildingwasconstructed in 1930 and Plaintiffspurchased itin 1992. Plaintiffsoperate a restaurantoutofitsfirstfloor. Dockets.Justia.com A . B efore the Policv Period In 2010, Plaintiffs retained O ptim us Structural D esign LLC to visually inspect the Building and evaluate its structural components. Optimus's inspectors discovered that the Building'swood fram ing and foundationsshowed S'signs ofsettlem entand severe deflections.'' tDetosMot.at2,ExhibitA at4.)Following itsinspection,Optimusdrafted areportstatingthat (i)t'gejxisting stnlcturalmembers(wood framing,piers,foundations)inthekitchenand storage areasmustbereinforcedg,l''(ii)tsgsltructuralframingintheareaswithdeflectionsmayhavetobe elevated with hydraulicjacksto itsoriginalpositiong,j''and (iii)ésltlhe currentcondition ofthe interiorframing which hassignsofseveredeflectionshastobe addressed assoon aspossible.'' (Def'sM ot.at2,ExhibitA at4.)DespiteOptimus'srecommendations,Plaintiffsdid nottake any action to cure these structuralissuesuntil2012. On M arch l,2011,GreatAm erican began insuring the Building undera separate policy unrelated to the policy atissue.In cormection with thatpolicy,GreatAm erican conducted a loss prevention inspection ofthe Building in M ay 2011.The inspection reportgraded the Building's construction quality as tdgood''and indicated thatthere wasno evidence ofwaterdamage and thatPlaintiffswereappropriately controlling exposureto loss. On February 21, 2012, Plaintiffs once again retained Optim us to furnish stnlctural engineering services. According to the engagem ent letter, Optimus agreed to design the Sfrequired structural repairs for the deteriorated existing stnzctural elem ents uncovered during (sic)inspection processandoutlined in ourinspectionreportdated September3,2010.'5(Def's M ot.at2,ExhibitB atl.)Optimusperfonned theinspection on April26,2012 and noted the following in itsinspection report: (l)All existing joists and 1x6 T&G wood sheathing in both kitchensaredeteriorated(rotted)andrequirereplacement. (2)Twoexisting concretebeamswereobserved inthecrawlspace w hich supportexisting load bearing w alls ofthe corridors.... These beam s appearto be in fair condition. (3)Shoring and re-shoring must be installed as per attached diagram.Itisrecommended thatonepartofthekitchen is(sic) closed. (Def'sM ot.at2,ExhibitD at2.)Plaintiffsinstalled temporary shoring inJune2012pursuantto Optim us'srecom m endations. Plaintiffssubsequently term inated Optimusand engaged Hillm an Engineering to provide professional engineering services and evaluate the repair plans drahed by Optimus.Hillman agreedtoliexaminetheexistingstructuralelementsofthegBuildingltodetermineifthescopeas proposedby goptimuslissufticientand allencompassing.''(DefsMot.at2,ExhibitF at2.)It also agreed to produce a com plete bid package so thatPlaintiffs could dsobtain com petitive bids forthereconstructionofthebuilding.''(Def'sMot.at2,ExhibitF at2.) Ronald Benson of Hillm an Engineering inspected the Building on O ctober 18, 2012. Benson then emailed Ricardo Dopico ChiefCorporate Councilforthe S.O.Beach Com . to infonn him that the inspection identified iisagging joists and areas of decking''that had completelyrotted outandthattheBuildingrequired additionalshoring.(Def'sM ot.at2,Exhibit G at1.) Benson also stated in hisemailthat(Ctheexistingcondition ofthestructureposesalife safety hazard and the shoring we have specified needsto be putin place immediately.''(f#.) Shortly afterBenson sentthis em ail,Plaintiffs term inated theiragreem entw ith H illm an. B. D urinz the Policv Period OnM arch 1,2013,thePlaintiffs'insurancepolicy(6$2013Policy'')wentintoeffect.Great A m erican previously insured the sam e property under tw o consecutive yearlong policies com m encing on M arch 1, 2011 and M arch 1, 2012. How ever, Plaintiffs' Com plaint alleges lossesunderonly the 2013 Policy. One m onth later, Plaintiffs retained Thom as M oe of TH M Structural Consulting to evaluate the condition ofthe Building.In his A pril 10,2013 engagem entletter,M oe explained thatSsltlhescopeofourworkwillbetoidentifythecauseofthestructuraldeficiencieswithinthe 3-stol'ybuilding specifically related totheinteriorofthe structure.''(Det>sResp.to Pl'sM ot.at 3 2,ExhibitW at1.)He noted in the same letterthatk'gvlisualobservationsofthecurrentissues include:sagging,tilting,and detlection ofinterior tloors and corridors;cracking ofinteriorw alls within corridor.''(1d.4 During the inspection on April 19,2013,M oe allegedly discovered a deteriorating sillplate1on the firstfloor. H e recom m ended thatPlaintiffsclose the restaurantand evacuate the Building.A round the sam e tim e,Plaintiffsallege thatthey discovered a broken pipe gushing wateronto the sillplatesand intothecrawlspace beneath the Building'sfrsttloor. Plaintiffs subsequently infonued Great Am erican of their property dam age claim . Plaintiffs subm itted a Property Loss N otice on M ay 9, 2013 claim ing they tdfound som e structuraldamagedueto water.''(Def'sMot.at4,ExhibitIat1.)Plaintiffsstated in thenotice that the loss occurred on M ay 2, 2013 at 12:00 p.m .H owever,Plaintiffs later asserted in their Sw orn Statem entin Proof ofLoss thatthe diproperty dam age and business internlption lossw as discovered on oraboutFriday,April19,2013.''tDet-'sM ot.at10,ExhibitS at1.)Plaintiffs' claim totals $2,400,143, including $906,294 for building loss and $1,493,849 for business incom e loss. C. Investization ofPlaintiffs'Propertv-luossC laim GreatA m erican initiated an investigation of the Building follow ing Plaintiffs'claim and retained SDII Global Corporation to help determ ine the cause of the property dnmage.SDl1 G lobal inspected the Building three tim es in M ay 2013 to kldeterm ine the cause,duration,and extentofthe dam age to the ground tloorofthe building''and fsto evaluate the tsagging'ofthe second and third storiesofthebuilding and determine itsrelation to the building foundation and ground tloorcondition.''(Def'sM ot.at4,ExhibitK at1.)ltconcludedthatCsthe damagetothe wood sillplate ofthe load bearing stud wallsofthe corridorand the woodjoistofthe tloor frnm ing the ground levelw as the resultof m oisture exposure for an extended period of tim e,'' lA sillplate isa pressure-treated board thatsits flaton a cem entsurface and supports the tloor trusses.In Plaintiffs'Building,the sillplatesrested on the centerload bearing concrete beams supporting the centralload bearing walls. 4 adding that'igtlhe extentand severity ofdecay on these wood building componentsindicated continuousmoistureexposureforseveralyears.''(1d.4 D uring the latter stages of the investigation, G reat Am erican hired W ood A dvisory Services,Inc.to inspectthe building and provide another causation opinion.Itvisually evaluated the premiseson October27,2016 and,like SDIIGlobal,determined thatthe dam age occurred over a period of years as a result of long-tenn deterioration brought on by m oisture exposure. W ood issued thefollowing opinionson the causeoftheBuilding'sstructuraldeficiencies: The deterioration ofthe subfloor,tloorjoists,wallstuds,and sill plates identified by the insured due to negative vertical detlections was caused by long-tenn deterioration from wood decay. The long-term decay w as caused by a generally high relative hum idity in the crawlspace, combined with generally cool interior air conditioned restaurant space resulting in condensationonthesubfloorandfloorjoists. The generalized long-term decay w as progressive and occurred overaperiod ofmany yearsasevidenced by the 2010 Optimus report and m ost likely over several decades based on decay rates in peerreview ed scientific articles tDepsM ot.at4,ExhibitL at8.) A s of June 2017, Great Am erican stillhad not issued a decision on w hether the 2013 Policy covered the propel' ty dam age alleged in Plaintiffs'claim .Plaintiffs therefore initiated this action on June 6,20l7 seeking recovery from GreatA m erican fortheiralleged loss. 111. SUM M ARY JUDGM ENT STANDARD Summaryjudgmentisauthorized wherethereisno genuineissueofmaterialfact. Fed. R.Civ.P.56(c).Theparty seekingsummaryjudgmentbearstheinitialburdenofdemonstrating the absence ofa genuine issue ofm aterialfact. Adickes v.S.H Kress drCo.,398 U .S.144,157 (1970). Theparty opposingthemotion forsummaryjudgmentmay notsimply restupon mere allegations or denials of the pleadings; the non-m oving party m ust establish the essential 5 elementsofits case on which itwillbearthe burden ofproofattrial. Celotex Corp.v.Catrett, 477 U.S.317 (1986). ,Matsushita Elec.lndus.Co.v.Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S.574 (1986). The non-movantmustpresentm ore than a scintilla ofevidence in supportofthe non-m ovant's position.A jurymustbeablereasonablytofind forthenon-movant.Andersonv.fibertyLobby, Inc.,477U.S.242,254(1986). IV . DlscussloN D. T he A ll-R isk lnsurance Policv Great Am erican insured Plaintiffs' Building under an all-risk com m ercial property insurance policy,effective from M arch 1,2013 through February 28,2014.All-risk policies Sicover a11fortuitous losses or damages other than those resulting from willful misconduct or fraudulentacts.''Fayad v.Clarendon NationalIns.Co.,899 So.2d 1082,1086 (Fla.2005). U nder Florida law , courts m ust construe insurance contracts Sçin accordance w ith the plain languageofthepoliciesasbargained forby theparties.''Auto-o wnersIns.Co.v.Anderson,756 So.2d 29,34 (F1a.2000).Sslfthe relevantpolicy language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation,one providing coverage and another lim iting coverage,the insurance policy is considered am biguous.'' 1d. A m biguous insurance policy provisions including am biguous exclusionary clauses are construed againstthe drafter and liberally in favorofthe insured.Seeid (ûllElxclusional' yclausesareconstruedevenmorestrictly againsttheinsurerthan coverageclauses.''). A plaintiffseeking to recoverunderan all-riskspolicy hasthe btlrden ofproving thata loss occurred to the insured's property w hile the policy w as in force.Egan v. W ashington Gen. Ins.Corp.,240 So.2d 875,876 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1970).fioncetheinsuredestablishesaloss apparently w ithin the tenns of an $allrisks'policy,the burden shifts to the insurerto prove that the lossarose from a cause which is excepted.''H udson v.PrudentialProp.tfrCas.Ins.Co.,450 So.2d 565,568 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.l984).Finally,fsifthe insurermeetsitsburden ofproving thatthe loss isexcluded,the burden then shiftsback to the insured tto establish thatan exception 6 to an exclusion applies.'''Bartram v.fandmark Am erican Ins.Co.,864 F.Supp.2d 1229, 1232 (N.D.Fla.2012). A lthough Plaintiffs'2013 Policy excludes Sscollapse''from its list of covered causes of loss,itrequires GreatAmerican to pay forphysicalloss of,or dam age caused by or resulting from ,a collapse as detined in the tkAdditional Coverages''section.The 2013 Policy defines a collapse as Sdan abruptfalling down orcaving in ofa building orany partofa building with the resultthatthe building or partof the building cannotbe occupied for its intended purpose.'' ûlsA brupt' is defined as 'characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning:unexpected.'''Kings Ridge,98 So.3d at 77 (citing M erriam-Webster' s Collegiate Dictionary 4 (11th ed.2008)).Thus,to obtain collapse coverage,Plaintiffsmustestablish that while the 2013 Policy wasin effed,some partofthe Building suddenly felldown orcaved and prevented Plaintiffsfrom operatingtheirfirst-tloorrestaurant. E. Policv Coveraze A nalvsis Plaintiffscontend thatStdeteriorated sillplatescaused a downward shiftin the building's centralstructureand requiredevacuation.''(P1'sResp.at4.)However,Plaintiffshave provided no affirm ative expertopinion ordocum entary evidence show ing thatthe alleged dam age actually satisfies the criteria for a covered collapse under the 2013 Policy.ln contrast,G reat Am erican has produced tw o expert opinions, docum entary evidence,and testim ony from fact w itnesses establishing m utliple reasons Plaintiffs' property dam age is not covered. U ltim ately, the evidence indicates the dam age occurred gradually over an extended period of tim e and that Plaintiffs knew about the Building's gradual deterioration w ellbefore the date they allege the collapseoccurred.Assuch,Plaintiffscalmotprovethatanyportion oftheBuilding abrupt% fell down or caved in during the 2013 Policy2 period and,thus, calm ot survive G reat A m erican's motionforsummaryjudgment. 2Plaintiffs'complaintalleges lossesunderthe 2013 Policy and only the 2013 Policy. To be sure, Plaintiffs contend in their response to Great American's motion for summary judgmentthat Great American insured the same Building undertwo separate policies from M arch 1,201l through February 1. N oEvidencethattheBuilding Suddenly FellorCaved In During thePolicy Period. According to Plaintiffs, the sill plate deterioration caused the Building's floors and ceilingsto unexpectedly drop afterthe 2013 Policy's coverage com m enced. They em phasize the sim ilarities betw een this case and Kings Ridge Comm unity Ass'n, Inc.v.Sagam ore Ins. Co.,98 So.3d 74 (Fla.5thDCA 2012).lnKingsRidge,theDistrictCourtofAppealofFloridafoundfor theinsured,holding thatacollapse occurredwherea specificincidentcaused a building'sceiling to unexpectedly and imm ediately detlectdownward twelve inches.1d.at77-78.Plaintiffs urge this Courtto follow suit,noting thatthis case and KingsRidge involve sim ilarproperty damage and identicalpolicy language. However,Kings Ridge differs from this case in one decisive respect.In that case,the Court held that the property dam age occurred abnlptly.Plaintiffs,on the other hand,have provided no affinnative expert opinion or docum entary evidence establishing that any partof theirBuilding abnlptly fellor caved in between M arch 1,2013- the date coverage began under the 2013 Policy and M ay 9,2013 the date Plaintiffs notified G reat A m erican ofthe alleged loss. ln K ingsRidge,the record clearly established a single m om entwhen,w ithoutpreparation or warning,the building's ceiling felltwelve inches.The Courtnoted that kion February 24, 2010,there w as an unexpected change to the clubhouse when the exterior doors ofthe westwing ofthe clubhouse began to shake and the drop ceiling and soffits defleded downwardg.l''1d. Before thatincident,the building in Kings Ridge showed no signs of existing defciencies or progressivedeterioration.TheCourtexplainedthatdtgplriortotheincidentonFebruary 24,2010, the drop ceiling,flatroof,and trusses w ere uprighton their base and had rem ained atthe sam e 28,2013.However,they failed to mention those earlierpolicies in theircomplaintand thusdo notstate claims forlosses under those policies.In a footnote of their response brief, Plaintiffs suggestthe Court should grantthem Ieaveto amend theircomplaintifççthe Court(determineslthatcoverage existsunder the previous policies issued by Great American, orthe facts produced attrialshow that a prior Great American gpolicylwasimplicated.''(Pl'sResp.at14,n.8).TheCourtwillnotindulgePlaintiffs'delayed, conditionalrequestforleave to am end its complaint.A nd even ifPlaintiffshad broughtclaim s underthe 20ll and 2012 policies,they stillcould notsurvive summary judgmentbecause they have failed to provide any evidence thata collapse occurred during eitheroftheearlierpolicy periods. 8 level,degree,and am ount of height for an indeterm inate period.''Id But at the tim e of the incident,those structuralelem ents 'tcollapsed imm ediately'' i.e.,Ssthey were no longerupright on theirbase;they w ere no longer atthe sam e level, degree,oramountofheightthatthey had previously maintained.''Id. ln this case, however, Plaintiffs have provided no evidence of a sim ilarly abrupt deflection ofthe Building's floors orceilings. To begin,Plaintiffscited conflicting datesofthe alleged collapse.They initially said the collapse occurred on M ay 2, 2013,butlater stated it occurred on A pril l9, 20l3. Furtherm ore, neither Aldo Garcia, the Building's architect, nor Thom as M oe,Plaintiffs' third stnlctural engineer, testified thatthe property dam age occurred suddenly.They stated simply that as of April 2013, the Building t'was starting to cave in'' (Garcia Dep.at92:8-12)and was t'structurally unsafe.''(1d.at 88:8-16) This testimony is . irrelevant,however,because GreatAm erican doesnotdisputethe existence ofstructuraldefects in M ay 2013.To the contrary, it argues- and the evidence confirm s thatthose sam e defects existed years before the claimed collapse. Thus,unlike Kings Ridge,the evidence in this case suggeststheproperty dam agedid notabruptly m aterialize--orforthatmatter, abruptly w orsenduring the 2013 Policy period. To rebutthe evidence showing the Building never abruptly fellor caved in, Plaintiffs offer only inaccurate and conclusory assertions. They tirst argue thatlsatno pointpriorto the 2013 discovery ofthe deteriorated sillplates wasitdeclared thatthe building was in a state of collapse,gorlthatthestructuredropped to alowerdegree in level....''(P1'sResp.at6)This . contention contlicts with Optimus's 2010 inspection reportexplicitly stating thatthe Building showed signs of settlementand severe deflections. N ext, Plaintiffs contend thatprior to 2013, nobody determ ined ûûthe structure could notbe occupied for its intended pum ose.''(P1'sResp.at 6.)Onceagain,Plaintiffs'assertion doesnotsquare with the factsin therecord Following its . A pril 2012 inspection, Optim us recom m ended Plaintiffs close one pal' t of the kitchen. A dditionally, Robert Benson of H illm an Engineering told Plaintiffs' Corporate Counsel in O ctober 2012 that the Building's structural deficiencies created a ûslife safety hazard.'' Thus, 9 Plaintiffs received two warnings thata11or partofthe Building could notbe occupied for its intended pup ose.The Building remained occupied until M ay 2013 only because Plaintiffs ignored thosewarnings. Ultim ately, the evidence indicates that Plaintiffs' property dam age resulted from structural defects that existed for years and steadily deteriorated over tim e. H aving failed to produce any evidence thatthe dam age occurred suddenly, Plaintiffs'reliance on Kings Ridge is m isplaced.Rather, the Court gleans more applicable guidance from cases involving sim ilar coverage disputes where property damage occurred progressively overan extended period. See, e.g.,N P.lr Realty Corp.v. Nationwide M ut.Ins. Co. ,2011W L 4948542,*4 (M .D.Fla.2011) (addressing whether dkdamage that occurred gradually over a period of time''qualified for coverage as a t'collapse').Based on those cases, the gradually occurring deterioration of Plaintiffs'Building doesnotqualify asa covered lossgiven thatthe applicablepolicy defines a collapse as an kiabruptfalling down or caving in.''See id;see also Ass' n of UnitOwncr. çof Nestaniv.State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,670 F.Supp.2d 1156, 1163(D.Or.2009),aff' dsubnom. Ass'n of Unittlwwcr. çof Nestani-A Grecian Villa v.State Farm Fire drCas Ins.Co.,434 F. . App'x579(9thCir.20l1)(holdingthatwherePlaintiffsallegedçtcollapse''ddresultedfrom water dam age and decay doccuning overa period oftime,'this çcollapse'was notlsudden'underthe termsofthePolicy'');Zamichieiv.CSAA FiretfrCas.Ins.Co.,No 3:16-CV-739 (VAB),2018 . W L 950116,at*4 (D.Conn.Feb.20,2018)(holding thatttprogressive deterioration''did not constitute a covered collapse where the applicablepolicy covered only ditan abruptfalling down or caving in of a building'... andnotthegradualdeterioration ofpropertyovertime'' );Holiday Vill.E.Homeowner' sAss'n v. QBE 1nsCorp.,517F.App'x 113,114 (3dCir.2013)(notingthat the term tsabrupt''Cdnarrows the m eaning oftcollapse'underthe Policy by lim iting coverage to an imm ediate,ratherthan gradual, collapse'' ). Knowledgeof Gradually WorseningDeteriorationPrecludesCoverage . 10 Despite case law suggesting thatgradualdam age does notqualify as an dtabruptfalli ng dow n or caving in,''Plaintiffs maintain thatthe Building'sprogressive years-long deterioration , nonethelessconstitutesa collapse. Butthecasesthey citein supportofthisposition do notapply. Each involveshidden defectsin buildingsthat, unlikePlaintiffs'Building previously showed no , signs of structural detk iencies before the alleged loss m aterialized. Johnston v. Companion Prop.drCas.Ins Co.,318 F.App'x 86l, 866 (11th Cir.2009)(aftirming judgmentforthe . insuredwheredecay wasSihidden from view');Kelly v Balboa Ins.Co.,897 F Supp.2d 1262, 1268(M .D.Fla.2012)(denyingsummaryjudgmentwheregenuineissueofmaterialfactexisted . . as to whetherPlaintiffknew ofthe structuraldecay caused by termitesl;The Oaks Unit1I1 Condo.Ass%,lnc. v.Allstate lns.Co.,2010 W L 4542899, at*l (M .D.Fla.Nov.10,2010) tsamel. Thatdistinction provesfatalto Plaintiffs'position thatgradualdeterioration may qualify as a collapse.Courts hold that insureds with knowledge of pre- existing deterioration cannot recoverfordamagecaused by theworsening ofthatdeterioration. SeeSandalwood Condo. Ass ' n atWildwoo4 lnc.v.AllstateIns.Co.,294F Supp.2d 1315,1319 (M .D.Fla.2003)(ç$glJn order . to recoverunderthe policy,gthe insuredlmustdemonstrate thatthe damage to the structural integrity ofthe Complex wasnotvisible and thatrthe insured)neitherknew nor should have known of the structuraldam age with sufficienttim e to allow for repairs before it reached the stageofkcollapse.''') As already discussed, Optimus and Hillman docum ented the Building's gradually deteriorating structure no laterthan 2012. The evidence leaves no doubt that Plaintiffs knew aboutthisprogressive deterioration. First,engineersfrom both firmsdrafted reportsdetailing the Building's structural deficiencies after each inspection. Second,Plaintiffs retained Optim us to design çsrequired structuralrepairsforthe deteriorated existing structuralelem ents''and engaged Hillm an to produce a completebid packageto garnerStcompetitivebidsfortherec onstruction of thebuilding.''(Def'sM ot.at2,ExhibitB at1and ExhibitF at2)Third,Hillman'sstructural . engineersentan em ailto Plaintiffs'corporate counselin O ctober2012 explaining the severity of the Building'sstructuraldeterioration and calling theBuildi ngatdlifesafetyhazard.''(DefsM ot. at 2,Exhibit G at 1)Because Plaintiffs received inspection reports and emailsdetailing the . structuralproblem s and recom mending im mediate repairs, the Courtcannot accept Plaintiffs' conclusory statem entthatthey had no knowledge oftheBuildi ' i tion-3 ng sdeterora CONCLIJSION For the reasons discussed above, GreatAmerican's m otion for summary judgmentis GRANTED and Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is D EN IED . lt is also ADJUDGED thatal1otherpending m otionsare DENIED AS M OOT. DONEAN D ORDERED in Cham bersatM iam i, % Florida,this 1C ofApril2018. FED ERIC A . M UNITED ST S DISTRICT JUDGE Copiesfunzished to: CounselofRecord 3F rthermore, Plaintiffs'contention thatitlacked knowledge ofthe deterior u ated sillplates(i.e., t he c a us e o f t h e d a ma g e ) i s i r r e l e v a n t b e c a u s e t h e e vi de n c e i nd i c a t e s Pl ai nt i f f s k ceilings and tl new aboutthe sinking wherethei oors(i.e.,the damage itselg.Sandalwood,294 F Supp.2d at 1319 (holding that,even nsured lacked knowledge ofthe specific defectthatcaused the dam . notrecoverunderthe policy ifthe QGdamage to the structuralintegrity of Com pl age,the insured stillcould insured dtknew gorjshould haveknown ofthe structuraldam age w ith sufficientteixme wa sal (1lvi e''rorthe to owsibl for before itreached the epairs stateofçcollapse''')(emphasisadded). 12
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
