BROADCASTS.com

b'

CAST IRON PIPES RUST & LEAK  

Marisol Rosa ("Rosa") appealed a final summary judgment entered in favor  of Safepoint Insurance Company ("Safepoint"). 

In Marisol Rosa v.  Safepoint Insurance Company, No. 5D21-3005, Florida Court of Appeals,  Fifth District (November 14, 2022) the Court of Appeals interpreted an  exclusion for damages caused by an act of nature.  The Insurance Policy  Safepoint insured Rosa\'s dwelling pursuant to a homeowners insurance  policy. The dwelling was damaged by the overflow of water from the  plumbing system. 

The parties agree that the loss resulted from the  deterioration of cast iron pipes that was caused by "rust or other  corrosion." After investigating the damage, Safepoint determined the  loss was excluded from coverage under the policy\'s Water Damage  Exclusion Endorsement. Rosa then sued seeking to recover the costs she  incurred in repairing her dwelling due to the water damage.  

The Issue  

The issue in this appeal is whether the policy covers the subject loss,  and the answer depends on the meaning of the term "act of nature" in the  policy.

The introductory paragraph of the policy\'s Exclusions section states  that the policy does "not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly  by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other  cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.  . . ." The definition of "Water Damage" following that introductory  language was replaced by an endorsement to the policy, the Water Damage  Exclusion Endorsement, which defines "Water Damage" as including: \\u201cd.  Accidental or intentional discharge or overflow of water or steam from  within a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire  protective sprinkler system or from within a household appliance; . . . .  Caused by or resulting from human or animal, forces or any act of  nature.\\u201d (emphasis added)  Thus, if the rust or other corrosion that caused this loss was an act of  nature, Safepoint correctly denied coverage. But, if the rust or other  corrosion was not an act of nature, the Water Damage Exclusion  Endorsement did not preclude coverage.