.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

The Sixth District Court of Appeals rules in favor of the insurance carrier, finding that ensuing water damage is not covered under the insurance carrier’s policy language.

State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Feltes, Fla. 6th DCA, No. 6D2023-0991, November 27, 2024

December 1, 2024

by Carolin A. Pacheco

This case arose out of the policyholder’s ongoing plumbing issues in her home. The insured property was built in the early 1960s, and the policyholder had been experiencing a number of plumbing issues as a result of an aging cast iron drain line, which eventually corroded and deteriorated, leading to wastewater escaping and causing damage beneath the foundation. 

State Farm conducted an investigation into the latest water leak claim submitted by the policyholder and determined the policy excluded coverage for the cost of accessing the leaking drain line, part of what is commonly known as “tear-out” coverage. This decision was based on the policy’s exclusion provision concerning wear and tear, and deterioration and repeated seepage or leakage of water. 

A jury initially awarded the policyholder nearly $60,000 in tear-out costs. The Sixth District Court of Appeals ultimately reversed this decision, in part, siding with State Farm’s interpretation of the policy’s exclusions. State Farm successfully argued the repeated seepage or leakage exclusion in its policy applied to the damages in question because the policy excluded losses resulting from gradual or repeated seepage or leakage from any plumbing system. It is noteworthy that the policyholder’s own plumbing expert admitted that wastewater had intermittently escaped the corroded drain line over several months, clearly meeting the definition of repeated seepage or leakage.

In reaching its decision, the court underscored that the exclusion applies regardless of whether the loss occurs abruptly or gradually. Rather, noting that what matters is whether the leak occurred over a period of time, thereby nullifying the tear-out coverage. 

Through this finding, the court reinforces the validity of State Farm’s exclusionary language concerning tear-out and repeated seepage or leakage of water. 


 

Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – December 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.