The court found there was no coverage regarding aesthetic uniformity between new materials installed after water damage occurred and the rest of the building. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. The Towers of Quayside No. 4 Condominium Assoc., Case No. 15-CV-20056-King (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Fla., Nov. 5, 2015). The insured's high rise condominium suffered water damage when a valve on the air conditioning unit damaged the drywall, carpeting, baseboards, insulation and wallpaper in the east hallways of the eleventh floor and the floors below. Floors three through twenty-five had a uniform appearance by design with respect to the carpet, wallpaper, and woodwork in the common area hallways. The insured submitted a claim under its property policy with Great American. A payment of $170,291.84 was made for damage to the east hallways of the eleventh floor and the floors below. The insured sought coverage to repair or replace undamaged carpeting, wallpaper, baseboards, and woodwork in (1) the west hallways and elevator landings of the eleventh floor and the floors below and in (2) floors twelve through twenty-five.The insured contended that the loss of aesthetic uniformity devalued the building and constituted a loss to the building. Great American's policy promised to pay for "direct physical loss from a Covered Cause of loss . . ." Coverage for consequential loss, defined as "delay, loss of use, loss of market, or any other consequential loss," was excluded. Great American moved for summary judgment. The court determined that the policy only provided coverage for "direct physical loss," specifically excluded coverage for consequential loss, and made no mention of "matching" or "aesthetic uniformity." While coverage for matching, for the purpose of achieving aesthetic uniformity, was appropriate where repairs concerned the continuous run of an item or adjoining area for materials such as wallpaper, baseboards, woodwork, and carpeting, matching was not otherwise required under the policy. Therefore, the court found that Great American was entitled to a declaration that it had no obligation to provide coverage to replace: (1) undamaged components on floors twelve through twenty-five or (2) undamaged carpeting in the west hallways of floors three through eleven. It was unclear, however, whether the wallpaper, baseboards, and woodwork on floors three through eleven formed a continuous run from one end of the building to the other, or whether these components were separated from each other in the same manner the carpeting in the east and west hallways was separated by the central elevator lobby on each floor. Therefore, Great American had failed to establish it was entitled to summary judgment with respect to whether it had to provide matching coverage for these components.
Follow our page in Facebook "Insurance Online". from Insurance Law Hawaii
