RONALD D. SEKURA AND CAROL SEKURA, APPELLANTS,
v.
GRANADA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Sekuras sued their home builder for constructing below code and sought coverage under Granada Insurance's Commercial General Liability policy. The court affirmed that Granada had no duty to defend and the policy did not cover claims for defective or deficient workmanship, as such claims are expressly precluded by standard policy exclusions.
Granada had no duty to defend Soto and the policy did not provide coverage. Claims for the cost of replacement and repair of deficient construction are expressly precluded by the work product, business risk, and professional services exclusions contained in the policy, as a matter of public policy, commercial liability insurance does not cover claims for defective or deficient workmanship.
[1] Commercial general liability insurance policies typically do not cover claims for defective or deficient workmanship as a matter of public policy.
[2] The purpose of commercial liability insurance is to provide protection for personal injury or property damage caused by a completed product, not for the replacement and r…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the purpose of ... comprehensive liability insurance coverage is to provide protection for personal injury or for property damage caused by the completed product, but not for the replacement and repair of that product.”
Establishes the foundational principle that liability insurance does not cover replacement or repair of defective work itself
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Sekuras hired builder Reinaldo Soto to construct their home, but discovered the structure was built below FEMA and Monroe County elevation require…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Professional Services Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Judge.
Ronald and Carol Sekura sued builder Reinaldo Soto after the Sekuras learned that the home that they had hired Soto to build had been constructed below Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Monroe County elevation requirements and that the County would not remove a Stop Work Order it had placed on the property until the structure was elevated or demolished. The Sekuras maintained that Granada Insurance Company provided coverage to Soto for such claims. Granada brought a declaratory action against Soto, the Sekuras and others, seeking a determination as to whether Granada was under a duty to defend and whether the Granada policy provided coverage for the Sekuras’ claim.
The trial court concluded that Granada did not have the duty to defend and that Soto’s Commercial General Liability policy did not provide coverage for the claim.
We agree.
The Sekuras’ claim for the cost of replacement and repair of deficient construction (that is, construction which did not meet FEMA and Monroe County elevation requirements and thus, did not meet requirements of the parties’ contract) was expressly precluded by the work product, business risk and professional services exclusions contained in Granada’s policy. It is well established that as a matter of public policy, commercial Lability insurance policies, like Granada’s, do not cover claims for defective or deficient workmanship. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. of America v. Deluxe Systems, Inc. of Florida, 711 So. 2d 1293, 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(eon-struing policy language virtually the same, if not the same, as that of Granada’s policy).
This is because “the purpose of ... comprehensive liability insurance coverage is to provide protection for personal injury or for property damage caused by the completed product, but not for the replacement and repair of that product.” LaMarche v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 390 So. 2d 325, 326 (Fla.1980).
Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2007)…at reiterate LaMarche’s broad language regarding the purpose of CGL policies stand for the proposition that faulty workmanship that damages the contractor’s own work can never constitute a covered “occurrence.” See, e.g., Sekura v. Granada Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d 861, 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Lassiter, 699 So. 2d at 769; Home Owners Warranty Corp. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 683 So. 2d 527, 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Tucker Constr. Co. v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 423 So. 2d 525, 527-28 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). We disagree. Alth…
-
Atl. Marine Fla., LLC v. Evanston Ins., 721 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (M.D. Fla. 2010)…r activities performed by an insured. Estate of Tinervin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 23 So.3d 1232, 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (affirming trial court determination that professional services exclusion applied); Sekura v. Granada Ins. Co., 896 So.2d 861, 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (finding that professional services exclusion of CGL insurance policy precluded recovery for claims for defective workmanship); Alpha Therapeutic Corp. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 890 F.2d 368, 369-70 (11th Ci…
Authorities Cited
- LaMARCHE v. The Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. & Clearwater Prestige Homes, Inc., 390 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1980)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Deluxe Sys., Inc., 711 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)