THE TOWERS OF QUAYSIDE NO. 4 CONDOMINIUM …

[Pages:7]Case 1:15-cv-20056-JLK Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2015 Page 1 of 7

IN TH E UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT CO U RT FO R TH E SO UTH ERN D ISTRICT O F FLO R IDA

CA SE NO . 15-CV -20056-K1N G GREAT AM ERICA N IN SURAN CE COM PA NY OF N EW YORK ,

Plaintiff/counter-D efendant,

VS.

THE TOW ERSOF QUAYSIDE NO.4

CON DOM IN IUM A SSOCIATION , D efendant/counter-plaintiff.

O RD ER G R ANTIN G IN PAR T PLA INTIFF/CO UN TER -D EFENDA NT 'S M O TION FO R SUM M ARY JUDG M ENT

TH IS CAU SE com esbeforetheCourtupon Plaintiff/counter-DefendantGREA T

AMERICAN INSURANCE COM PANY OF NEW YolG 's(hereinafter:?plaintiff'or iitlreatAmerican'')M otionforSummaryJudgmentandlncorporatedM emorandum of Law inSupportThereof(the1:M otion'')(DE 20),filedM ay20,2015.1

BA CK G R O UND 2

GreatAmerican issuedQuaysideapropertyinsurancepolicyfortheperiodof

February 2,2013 toFebruary 2,2014.Thepolicy provided first-party property insurance coveragefortheprem iseslocated at4000 Tow erside Terrace,M iam i,Florida33038,

1The Courthasadditionally considered Defendant/counter-plaintiffTHE TO W ER S OF

QUAYSIDE NO.4 CONDOM INIUM ASSOCIATION 'S (hereinaher ?%Defendant''or ?touayside'')M emorandum in Opposition to PlaintiffsM otion forSummary Judgment andIncorporatedStatementofM aterialFacts(DE 25),filedJune29,2015,andPlaintifps ReplyinSupportofitsM otionforSumm aryJudgment(DE 28),filedJuly 17,2015.

2The follow ing factsareundisputed .

1

Case 1:15-cv-20056-JLK Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2015 Page 2 of 7

whichincludesacondominium buildingthatisthesubjectofthisaction.3OnFebruary

11,2013,areleaseofw aterfrom abroken valveonan airconditioningunitin the building causedw aterdam age to thedryw all,cam eting,baseboards,insulation,and wallpaperin the easthallwaysoftheeleventh floorandthe tloorsbelow .Floorsthree

throughtw enty-fiveofthebuildinghaveauniform appearanceby design with respectto thecarpet,w allpaper,and w oodwork in thecom m on areahallw ays.Thecarpeted east hallwaysofthebuilding are separated from thecarpetedw esthallw aysby atiled elevator landing on each f1oor.4

Quaysidesubmittedaclaim toGreatAmericanf0rlossand/ordamagetothe

building arising from thereleaseofw ater,including,l'nteralia,lossand/ordam ageto dlyw all,carpeting,baseboards,insulation,andw allpaperoftheeasthallwaysofthe

eleventhtloorandtloorsbelow.GreatAmericanpaidQuaysideatotalof$170,291.84for thedamagetotheeasthallwaysoftheeleventh tloorandthetloorsbelow.Quayside

assertsthatthisam ountdoesnotfullycom pensateitforthedirectphysicallosscaused by

thew aterdam age.

Additionally,Quaysidesoughtcoveragetorepairorreplaceundamagedcarpeting, wallpaper,baseboards,andwoodworkin 1)thewesthallwaysandelevatorlandingsof theeleventh floorandtloorsbelow and2)tloorstwelvethroughtwenty-five.Quayside

contendsitisentitledtorepairorreplacem entoftheseundam aged componentsbecause

3'T'hebuilding istw enty-svestories.

4

Based

upon

the

parties' respective

statem

ents

of

facts ,

it

is

unclear

as

to

w

hether

the

baseboards, w oodw ork, and w allpaper of the east and w est hallw ays are sim ilarly

separated by the elevator landing on each tlooror whetherthe baseboards,w oodw ork,

andw allpaperarecontinuousrunsacrosseach tloor.

2

Case 1:15-cv-20056-JLK Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2015 Page 3 of 7

1)itwillotherwisenotbepossibletoachieveaestheticuniformitybetweenthenew

carpeting,w allpaper,baseboards,andw oodw ork installed in theareathatsuffered w ater

damageandtherestofthebuildingand2)thelossofaestheticuniformitydevaluesthe

buildingandconstitutesa lossto thebuilding.GreatAm erican disputesthisposition,and

informedQuaysidethatnocoverageisavailableforrepairorreplacementofbuilding

componentsthatwerenotphysically dam aged.

Thepolicy'sDifferenceinConditions(i1D1C'')CoverageForm provides,inter

tz//tz,;?W ew illpay foryourSloss'to CoveredProperty from aCovered CauseofLoss.'' TheD 1C D eclarationsform provides,intertz/?tz,IO IC DirectPhysical?l-oss'Them ost

wewillpayfordirectphysicalSloss'from aCoveredCauseofLoss...is...(thelim its ofinsurancesetforthinthepolicy.l''Asamendedbyanendorsem ent,thepolieydesnes

??covered CauseofLoss''asl?directphysical?loss'to CoveredProperty,exceptthose causesofiloss'listed in theexclusions.''Through itsSpecisedCauseofLossForm ,the policy specifically excludescoverageforconsequentialloss,which itdefinesas?'D elay, lossofuse,lossofm arket,orany otherconsequentialloss.''

Throughtheinstantmotion,GreatAmericanseekssummaryjudgmenton CountI ofitsComplaint,whichrequeststheentryofalldeclarlationjthatGreatAm ericanhasno obligationunderthe(plolicytoprovidecoverageforrepairorreplacementofbuilding

com ponentsthatdidnotsustain directphysicallossordam age....'' LEG A L STA ND AR D

lkThe Courtshallgrantsumm ary judgmentifthe m ovantshowsthatthere isno genuinedisputeastoanymaterialfactandthemovantisentitled tojudgm entasamatter

3

Case 1:15-cv-20056-JLK Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2015 Page 4 of 7

oflaw .''Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a).A party asserting thata factcannotbe oris genuinely

disputed m ust supportthe assertion by lsciting to particular parts of m aterials in the record,including depositions,docum ents,electronically stored inform ation,affidavitsor

declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only),

adm issions,interrogatory answersorotherm aterials',orshow ing thatm aterialscited do notestablish theabsenceorpresence ofagenuinedispute,orthatan adverseparty cannot

produceadmissibleevidencetosupportthefact.''1d.at56(c)(1).??lndeterminingwhether summaryjudgmentisappropriate,thefactsandinferencesfrom thefactsareviewedin

thelightm ostfavorableto thenon-m oving party,andtheburden isplaced on the m oving party to establish both the absence of a genuine m aterialfactand that it is entitled to

judgmentasamatteroflaw.''M atsushitaElec.Indus.Co.v.ZenithRadio Corp.,475 U.S.574,586-87(1986).

Inopposing amotion forsumm aryjudgment,thenon-moving party maynotrely

solely on the pleadings, but m ust show by affidavits, depositions, answ ers to interrogatories,and adm issionsthatspecificfactsexistdem onstrating agenuine issue for

trial.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.56(c),(e);seealsoCelotex Corp.v.Catrett,477U.S.317,32324 (1986).Further,the existence ofa Ssscintilla''of evidence in supportofthe nonmovant'sposition is insufficient;there mustbe evidence on which thejury could

reasonably 5nd forthe non-m ovant.Andersen v.Liberty Lobby,Inc.,477 U .S.242,252

(1986).Likewise,acourtneednotperm itacaseto goto ajul'ywhentheinferencesthat

are drawn from the evidence,and upon w hich thenon-m ovantrelies,are ?kim plausible.''

M atsushita,475U.S.at592-94;M izev.Jefferson C7/y Bd.OfEduc.,93 F.3d 739,743

4

Case 1:15-cv-20056-JLK Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2015 Page 5 of 7

(11thCir.1996). Atthesummaryjudgmentstage,thejudge'sfunctionisnotto??weightheevidence

and determ ine the truth ofthe m atter,butto determ ine whetherthere isa genuine issue fortrial.''Anderson,477U .S.at249.In m aking thisdeterm ination,theCourtm ustdecide which issuesarem aterial.A m aterialfactisonethatm ightaffecttheoutcom eofthecase. 1d.at248.Cio nly disputes overfactsthatm ightaffectthe outcom e ofthe suitunderthe

governing1aw willproperlyprecludetheentryofsummaryjudgment.Factualdisputes

thatareirrelevantorunnecessary willnotbecounted.''1d.TheCourtm ustalso determ ine whetherthe dispute abouta m aterialfactis indeed genuine,thatis,C?ifthe evidence is

suchthatareasonablejury couldreturn averdictforthenonmovingparty.''f#.;see,e.g., M arineCoatingsofAla.,lnc.v.UnitedStates,932F.2d 1370,1375(11thCir.1991).

DISCUSSIO N

GreatAmericanmovesforsummaryjudgmentonitsclaim foradeclarationthat thepolicydoesnotentitleQuaysidetocoverageforreplacementofundamagedbuilding

com ponentsto assureaestheticuniform ity betw een dam aged building com ponentsthat m ustbereplaced and theundam aged building components.In supportofitsm otion, GreatAm erican reliesonthepolicy'slim itation ofcoverageto'sdirectphysicalloss''and

explicitexclusionofcoverageforconsequentialloss.Foritspart,Quaysidearguesthat

them easureofrecovery underthepolicym ustbedeterm ined from theperspectiveof dam agetothebuilding asawhole,thatthebuilding asawholesuffered directphysical dam agefrom w ater,and thatthepolicy coversallcostsnecessary torestorethebuilding to itspre-loss,aesthetically uniform condition.

5

Case 1:15-cv-20056-JLK Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2015 Page 6 of 7

Quayside'sinterpretationnotwithstanding,thepolicyplainlyonlyprovides

coveragefor??directphysicalloss,''specifically excludescoverageforconsequentialloss,

and m akesnom ention of?lm atching''oriiaestheticuniform ity''atall.W hilethe Court

findsthatcoverageform atching,forthepurposeofachieving aestheticunifbrm ity,is

appropriatewhererepairsconcern?lanycontinuousrunofanitem oradjoiningarea''for

m aterialssuch asw allpaper,baseboards,w oodw ork,and carpeting,itisplain that

m atching isnotothenviserequiredunderthepolicy.SeeOcean Pr?ew TowersAss'n,Inc.

v.QBEIns.Corp.,No.11-60447,2011W L 6754063,at#12n.4(S.D.Fla.Dec.22,

2011)(Scola,J.).Tohold othenvisewoulddoviolencetoeithertheparties'mutualduties

ofgoodfaith ortheplainterm softhepolicy.

Accordingly,theCourtfindsGreatA m erican isentitledto adeclaration thatithas

noobligationtoprovidecoveragetoreplace:1)undam agedcomponentsontloorstwelve

throughtwenty-fiveor2)undamagedcam etinginthewesthallwaysoftloorsthree

through

eleven.5H

ow

ever,asitisunclearw

hetherthew

allpaper ,

baseboards,and

woodw ork on tloorsthreethrough eleven form acontinuousrun from oneend ofthe

buildingtotheother,orwhetherthesecom ponentsareseparated from each otherin the

sam em annerthecarpeting in theeastandw esthallwaysisseparatedby thecentral

elevatorlobby on each tloor,GreatAm erican hasfailedto establish itisentitled to

summ aryjudgmentwithrespecttowhetheritmustprovideS?matching''coveragefor

thesecom ponents.

5 W

ith

respect to

the

carpeting ,

the undisputed

record

establishes thatthe

carpeting

does

notform acontinuousrun from oneend ofthebuildingto the other.

6

Case 1:15-cv-20056-JLK Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/05/2015 Page 7 of 7

CON CLU SIO N Therefore, it is O RDERED, A DJU D GED , and D EC REED that Plaintiff/counter-DefendantGREAT A M ERICAN IN SUR AN CE COM PA NY OF N EW

YORK'S M otion for Summary Judgm ent (DE 20) be, and the same is, hereby

G R AN TED IN PA RT. DO NE A ND O R DERED in Cham bers at the Jam es Lawrence K ing Federal

Justice Building and United StatesCourthouse,in M iam i,M iam i-D ade County,Florida, this4thday ofN ovem ber,2015.

t

C c: AIIcounselofrecord

M ES LA W REN E K IN G ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JUD G

7

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download