In J&S Welding, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance coverage Firm, the U.S. Court docket of Appeals reviewed a abstract judgment ruling in favor of co-defendant West American Insurance coverage Firm (“West American”), issued by the U.S. District Court docket for the Western District of Tennessee. The sixth Circuit held that the property coverage’s beauty harm exclusion utilized to bar protection as a result of the insured, J&S Welding, Inc. (“Insured”), did not disclose or produce any knowledgeable proof to rebut the conclusions of the West American’s three consultants, who decided the roof’s harm was merely beauty.
Background
In November 2019, West American[1] issued an insurance coverage coverage offering protection for the Insured’s industrial store buildings. In 2021, the Insured, via its public adjuster, filed a declare underneath the property coverage, alleging {that a} Might 2020 hailstorm brought about vital harm to the roofs of two buildings. West American retained an impartial adjuster to examine the loss. Subsequently, West American issued fee for the damages it deemed to be coated and non-cosmetic. Regardless of accepting and cashing the funds, the Insured claimed West American’s preliminary protection willpower was insufficient, arguing that the insurer “’severely undervalued the declare’ and ‘refused to pay the true quantity of the loss…’”
In response, West American retained an engineer to additional examine the alleged harm from the hailstorm. This engineer concluded that the roofs solely sustained minor dents, which have been “beauty in nature.” He acknowledged that the roofs’ performance and longevity weren’t affected by the storm. Based mostly on this inspection, West American suggested the Insured that the coverage would offer no additional protection primarily based on the applying of the Roof Surfacing Beauty Loss Exclusion. A lawsuit ensued, whereby the Insured alleged that West American breached the contract by failing to pay full worth for the declare.
After the lawsuit commenced, West American retained two further consultants to reevaluate whether or not the property sustained non-cosmetic harm. Though the structural engineer retained by West American discovered indentations on the roofs, he concluded that they didn’t affect the performance or longevity of the roofs’ supplies. The second knowledgeable additionally decided that the roofs solely sustained minor harm, which might not affect their performance.
Regardless of arguing in any other case, the Insured didn’t produce any knowledgeable proof relating to the associated fee to restore or substitute the roof or the instruments and electrical gear that the Insured claimed have been additionally broken. As an alternative, the one proof produced by the Insured was the testimony of the Insureds’ proprietor and public adjuster.
Evaluation
The events disagreed on whether or not the wind and hail harm to the roofs fell inside the coverage’s cosmetic-damage exclusion. The Insured argued that the harm was structural and subsequently coated underneath the coverage. The Insured additionally claimed that the beauty exclusion was ambiguous. In response, West American argued that the harm was merely beauty in nature and fell underneath the cosmetic-damage exclusion of the insurance coverage coverage, which excludes protection for superficial harm that doesn’t have an effect on the roof’s performance as a barrier to the weather.
Making use of Tennessee legislation, the court docket discovered that the beauty harm exclusion within the insurance coverage coverage was unambiguous and excluded protection for “any loss or harm (1) consisting of marring, pitting, or different superficial harm, (2) brought on by wind and/or hail, (3) that alters the bodily look of the roof, (4) however with out stopping the roof from persevering with to operate as a barrier to the weather to the extent that it did earlier than the loss or harm occurred.”
In reaffirming the district court docket’s resolution, the court docket concluded that the Insured failed to supply any knowledgeable proof to rebut the conclusions reached by the three consultants retained by West American, all of whom decided that the harm to the roof was purely beauty.
The court docket additional held that the testimony supplied by the Insured’s proprietor and public adjuster didn’t qualify as knowledgeable testimony and was subsequently inadequate to ascertain the existence of non-cosmetic harm. The court docket emphasised that knowledgeable testimony is essential in disputes involving technical issues like roof harm, particularly when an insurance coverage coverage exclusion is at problem. With out such proof, the insured social gathering can’t successfully problem the insurer’s software of a coverage exclusion.
Conclusion
In affirming abstract judgment in favor of West American, the court docket strengthened the precept that knowledgeable proof is required to defeat abstract judgment in circumstances like this the place an insurer is relying upon knowledgeable opinion on a extremely technical matter to implement an exclusion. With out it, the plaintiff-insured has no admissible proof from which an affordable jury might reject the defendant-insurer’s knowledgeable opinion and the court docket should grant abstract judgment in favor of the insurer.
[1] The events agreed that Liberty Mutual took no half within the issuance of the coverage and, subsequently, the District Court docket decided that Liberty Mutual was not a correct social gathering to this motion.
About The Authors
