When It Comes to Wind-Driven Rain, Storm Damage Coverage Is Questionable
Hurricane Irma has come and gone. Unlike Hurricane Wilma in 2005, it did not leave a sea of blue tarps in its wake. Nonetheless, many homeowners sustained water damage and the question becomes, is there insurance coverage.
October 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM
4 minute read
Hurricane Irma has come and gone. Unlike Hurricane Wilma in 2005, it did not leave a sea of blue tarps in its wake. Nonetheless, many homeowners sustained water damage and the question becomes, is there insurance coverage.
The lack of blue tarps in South Florida is indicative of a lack of roof damage caused by Hurricane Irma which may spell lack of coverage for water damage claims. Most insurance policies contain an exclusion or limitation for water damage to the interior of a building unless a windstorm damages the roof or exterior walls of a structure through which water enters. This policy exclusion is known as the wind-driven rain exclusion. An example of this exclusion/limitation can be found in Insurance Services Office (ISO) forms which provide, “We will not pay for loss of or damage to property, as described and limited in this section. In addition, we will not pay for any loss that is a consequence of loss or damage as described and limited in this section … The interior of any building or structure, or to personal property in the building or structure, caused by or resulting from rain, snow, sleet, ice, sand or dust, whether driven by wind or not, unless the building or structure first sustains damage from a covered cause of loss to its roof or walls through which the rain, snow, sleet, ice, sand or dust enters.”
The most common cause of water damage from a storm like Irma occurs when water enters through window or door seals without any damage to the windows or doors itself. Seepage of water through the seals is typically considered a maintenance issue and does not constitute a peril under the insurance policy. Similarly, when a roof is covered by a tarp and the wind blows off the tarp causing water to enter the dwelling, the exclusion has been found to apply. Many courts have found that a temporary roof covering during construction is not considered a “roof” under the meaning of the policy. The courts have held in order to be, or become a roof, its construction or reconstruction must have reached the point where a reasonably prudent householder would consider it, if left in that condition for a month or months, or longer, as adequate against all risks of wind and rain which could be reasonably anticipated as likely to happen according to the general and recurrent experiences of the past, but not including any extraordinary or unprecedented eventuality.
What about flood insurance coverage for water damage caused by wind-driven rain? Unfortunately, flood insurance does not cover wind-driven rain. According to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), “When rain enters through a wind-damaged window or door, or comes through a hole in the wall or roof, the NFIP considers the resulting puddles and damage to be windstorm-related, not flood related. Flood insurance covers overflow of inland or tidal waters and unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. However, the flood must be a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of two or more acres of normally dry land area.”
Coverage disputes don't always result in an outright denial of coverage. In some instances coverage is afforded but a dispute remains as to the amount of the claim. In this scenario the retention of a public adjuster may be advisable, particularly if the difference in the claim amount is large. Be mindful, however, that most public adjustors work for a percentage of the recovery. When in doubt, seek the advice of an attorney specializing in insurance claims.
Reid A. Cocalis is a director at Tripp Scott in Fort Lauderdale. His litigation practice includes complex business litigation, medical malpractice, health care law and products liability.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Less Is More: The Risks of Excessive Data Collection from Mobile Devices
- 2New Reporting Requirements in the Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Sectors
- 3State Court Denies Firm's Attempts to Arbitrate Late Attorney's $10M Life Insurance Dispute
- 4Remote Work and Cybersecurity: Keeping Law Firm Data Safe Beyond the Office
- 5Prisoners Get Education Support, How About Victims?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250