When does the water exclusion in a Florida homeowners (HO) insurance policy defeat coverage for storm-related damage? In this appeal, Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a Seminole County trial court and held that an all-risk homeowners policy’s water exclusion barred coverage after an in-ground swimming pool floated out of the ground following a tropical storm.
Background: An All-Risk Homeowners Policy and a Storm-Damaged Pool
The insurer issued an all-risk insurance policy to the insured. During a tropical storm, the insured partially emptied his family’s in-ground swimming pool because it was overflowing. The following day, the insured discovered that the pool had lifted out of the ground.
The policyholders filed suit for breach of contract, and the insurer denied on the Water Exclusion provision of the policy (very similar to the standard exclusion) that provided:
The Water Exclusion Provision at Issue
We do 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.
Water Damage, meaning:
(1) Flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of a body of water, or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind;
(3) Water below the surface of the ground, including water which exerts pressure on or seeps or leaks through a building, sidewalk, driveway, foundation, swimming pool or other structure.
The Trial Court Ruling and the Fifth DCA’s De Novo Review
The policyholders argued that the damage was covered under the ensuing-loss provision in the policy. In response to competing summary judgments, the trial court found that the direct cause of the damage was the pool shell coming out of the ground, rather than the hydrostatic pressure, even though there appeared to be an agreement of competing experts on this point.
Reviewing the matter de novo, the Appellate Court agreed with the insurer, finding the policy’s plain language excluded the damage and that it was not an ensuing loss. You can read the full opinion (Case No. 5D13-2683) on the Fifth District Court of Appeal website.
What the Water Exclusion Ruling Means for Florida Policyholders
An all-risk (open-peril) homeowners policy covers every risk of physical loss to the property unless the loss is specifically excluded. Once the policyholder shows that a loss occurred, the insurer bears the burden of proving that an exclusion — here, the water exclusion — applies. This decision is a reminder that Florida courts enforce unambiguous water-exclusion language as written, and that an anti-concurrent-causation clause (“regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence”) can defeat coverage even when a covered peril combines with an excluded one.
Ensuing-loss provisions can restore coverage for a separate covered peril that follows an excluded event, but Florida courts read them narrowly, and they do not resurrect coverage for the direct damage caused by the excluded peril itself. Exclusions for water “below the surface of the ground” and for hydrostatic pressure are among the most heavily litigated provisions in first-party property cases, and the outcome frequently turns on which cause a court treats as the direct cause of the loss.
Because these disputes turn on causation and on the plain language of the policy under de novo review, policyholders facing a water-damage denial should document the cause of loss carefully, preserve expert support, and have the exclusion and any ensuing-loss language reviewed closely before accepting a denial. If your homeowners claim has been denied under a water exclusion, Cox Law, PLLC can help you evaluate your coverage position.