.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Court rules the more reasonable interpretation of the term “hurricane occurrence” is the loss had to have been caused by the hurricane.

Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company v. Richard and Nancy Jones; Florida 5th DCA, 5D23-0376

May 1, 2024

by Danielle N. Robinson

Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company (Farm Bureau) appealed an order granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Richard and Nancy Jones. The order found the hurricane deductible in the policy issued by Farm Bureau could not be applied to the loss caused by an unrelated, local hailstorm that occurred during a “hurricane occurrence.” The case involved the interpretation of a calendar year hurricane deductible endorsement in the policy which permitted the carrier to apply the hurricane deductible for an “event of the first windstorm loss caused by a single hurricane occurrence.” The endorsement defined “hurricane occurrence” as a period that “[b]egins at the time a hurricane watch or warning is issued for any part of Florida” and “[e]nds 72 hours following the termination of the last hurricane watch or hurricane warning issued for any part of” the state. 

The parties agreed the loss at issue occurred during a “hurricane occurrence.” The issue was that the hurricane, Hurricane Isaias, was making its way through New England at the time an unrelated, local hailstorm caused damage to the insured property in Jacksonville, Florida. The Fifth District Court of Appeals took issue with the the fact that the policy provided coverage for a “hurricane occurrence,” which was defined as a time period, stating hurricanes and windstorms cause losses, “time periods do not.” The carrier argued the loss occurred during a “hurricane occurrence” as defined by the policy and, therefore, it was irrelevant that the hailstorm that caused the loss was unrelated to Hurricane Isaias. The court rejected this argument, finding that the carrier’s interpretation of the policy would require the court to change the term “caused by a single hurricane occurrence” to “during a single hurricane occurrence,” which the court did not find reasonable. The court ruled the more reasonable interpretation of the term “hurricane occurrence” was that the loss had to have been caused by the hurricane, affirming the lower courts ruling in favor of the insureds.  


 

Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – May 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.