.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Florida Appeals Court Upholds Insurer’s Denial of Interior Water Damage Claim Under Policy’s Water Damage Exclusion Endorsement

Spartan Services Corp. v. People’s Trust Insurance Company, Fla. 3d DCA, No. 3D23-2301, May 7, 2025

June 1, 2025

In Spartan Services Corp. v. People’s Trust Insurance Company, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in the carrier’s favor, holding that when the policy is read as a whole, the Water Damage Exclusion Endorsement (WDE) excluded coverage for the claimed interior rainwater damage and, thus, Spartan Services Corp.’s services related to same.

Spartan brought suit against People’s Trust for breach of contract for failure to pay Spartan’s water mitigation and roof tarping invoices related to an underlying insurance claim. People’s Trust denied the claim and Spartan’s invoices related to the interior water damage. People’s Trust claimed its inspection did not find any storm damage to the roof, and it determined the interior leaking was due to excluded wear and tear, and deterioration of the roof and its components. People’s Trust also cited the policy’s WDE, which excludes coverage for rainwater damage to the interior of the property unless the damage was the result of a peril insured against that is caused by an opening in the roof.

During the underlying litigation, People’s Trust sought summary judgment based on the WDE. In response, Spartan argued the WDE did not apply to Coverage A property under the policy; as such, it was not required to prove a peril insured against caused an opening in the roof. The trial court granted summary judgment in People’s Trust’s favor, and this appeal followed.

Notably, on appeal, Spartan abandoned its previous argument that the WDE did not apply to Coverage A and, instead, argued that the ensuing loss provision under the wear and tear, deterioration exclusion provided coverage for the interior damage. The Third District disagreed. The court found that the WDE did apply to exclude coverage for the interior damage and that Spartan failed to satisfy its burden to prove an exception to the WDE exclusion for same. Accordingly, the Third District affirmed summary judgment in favor of People’s Trust. 


 

Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – June 2025 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 © 2025 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.