X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

On June 29, 2022, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a favorable decision for insurers, but on its face, the decision may seem to conflict with Fifth District law.

In Herrington v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London (Florida Fourth DCA June 29, 2022), the court reviewed an order granting summary judgment to an insurer. The policyholder’s home suffered damage caused by a water pipe leak, and while the insurer acknowledged coverage, it only paid the maximum under the policy’s “water damage aggregate limitation” endorsement: $5,000. The policyholder claimed that the endorsement did not limit “tear-out” expenses, and thus the expenses related to tearing out and accessing the damaged plumbing should not be subject to the $5,000 cap.

This premium content is locked for
FC&S Expert Coverage Interpretation subscribers.

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis

Already have an account?
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact our Sales Department at 1-800-543-0874 or email [email protected].

 

Get Answers Directly From the FC&S Experts

Submit your coverage interpretation question to the editors of FC&S for quick and reliable information.

Question of the Week

Insurance Coverage Q&A: When the Rug Needs to Dry ›

When the drying process of an oriental rug leads to damage, is there coverage?

Question of the Week Archive ›

Copyright © 2024 ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.