BROADCASTS.com

b'

INSURANCE POLICY MEANS WHAT IT SAYS\\n\\nThe Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal was asked to resolve what a court \\nis to do when all the surest proof of contracting parties\' subjective \\nintentions and expectations flatly contradict the clear words of the \\nissued policies of insurance. In Shiloh Christian Center v. Aspen \\nSpecialty Insurance Company, No. 22-11776, United States Court of \\nAppeals, Eleventh Circuit (April 13, 2023) the Eleventh Circuit followed\\n the generally accepted rules of insurance contract interpretation.\\n\\nSUBJECTIVE INTENT v. POLICY WORDING\\n\\nAspen Specialty Insurance Company, a billion-dollar insurance \\nconglomerate, had essentially all of the subjective-intent evidence on \\nits side. The policyholder-Shiloh Christian Center, a small Florida \\nchurch-had the policy text.\\n\\nThe district court found the evidence of the parties\' subjective intent \\noverwhelming and\\xa0 granted summary judgment to Aspen.\\n\\nFACTS\\n\\nIn 2016 and 2017, respectively, Hurricanes Matthew and Irma tore through\\n Melbourne, Florida, pummeling Shiloh Christian Center. On both \\noccasions, the storms peeled back the church\'s roof, allowing rain to \\nsoak the exposed structure.\\n\\nIn 2015, the year before Matthew hit, Shiloh\'s property-insurance policy\\n with Aspen Specialty Insurance Company covered losses resulting from \\nhurricanes. In the middle of that year, though, Shiloh specifically \\nasked Aspen to stop covering named-windstorm-related losses. Aspen \\nagreed and issued an endorsement implementing the requested change: \\n"THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.... It is\\n understood and agreed effective 7/16/2015, the following change is made\\n to this policy: Named Windstorm coverage is removed from this policy."\\n\\nReflecting the amendment, Aspen reduced Shiloh\'s premium and even \\nrefunded its past payments for named-windstorm coverage.\\n\\nAspen then issued the 2016 policy. The cover page described the 2016 \\npolicy as a "renewal of" its 2015 predecessor. But the two policies\' \\nterms differed in material respects. For one thing, the 2016 policy was \\nabout $10,000 cheaper per year than the amended 2015 policy. Far more \\nsignificantly the 2016 policy contained no exclusion for losses caused \\nby named windstorms. A "Named Windstorms" exclusion was conspicuously \\nabsent from the policy as issued.\\n\\nIn October 2016, a named windstorm-Hurricane Matthew-blew through \\nMelbourne, ripping the roof off Shiloh\'s building. Aspen denied the \\nclaim because Shiloh\'s policy excluded coverage for losses caused by \\nnamed windstorms. \\n\\nThe district court granted summary judgment to Aspen.\\nANALYSIS\\n\\nThe general rules governing the interpretation of insurance policies \\nunder Florida law are clear that the cardinal principle is that a \\npolicy\'s text is paramount.\\n\\nINTERPRETATION OF THE POLICIES\\n\\nFirst, the Irma Policy unambiguously covers named windstorms. The \\nexpressio unius canon applies with particular force because the Irma \\nPolicy\'s catalogue of exclusions is so detailed. On its face the Irma \\nPolicy clearly doesn\'t exclude- and thus covers-losses resulting from \\nnamed windstorms.\\n\\n\\nThe court concluded: "Whatever the evidence of the contracting parties\' \\nsubjective intentions and expectations, the Irma Policy\'s plain language\\n unambiguously covers losses caused by named windstorms."\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nAspen failed to properly underwrite and issue the two relevant policies \\nto Shiloh by not incorporating the named windstorm exclusion it had \\noriginally. There was no question that the parties intended to exclude \\nwindstorms, the premium was reduced as a result of the intent, but Aspen\\n left the exclusion out of the two policies in effect at the time of the\\n two hurricanes. For reasons not described in the opinion Aspen failed \\nto move to reform the two policies to provide the coverages the parties \\nagreed to issue and was compelled to pay the claims neither party \\nexpected to cover Shiloh\'s property.\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.\\n