DAVID ABRAHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, A FOREIGN 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 court affirmed summary judgment denying insurance coverage for mold damage because the policy excluded mold unconnected to a covered peril, and undisputed evidence showed no water leak occurred.
An insurer may deny coverage for mold damage when the policy excludes mold not caused by a covered peril and undisputed evidence establishes no water leak occurred.
[1] An insurer may deny coverage for mold damage when the policy excludes mold unconnected to a covered peril, even if a factual dispute exists regarding misrepresentation in…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“if a trial court reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons, it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record”
Court explaining the standard for affirming summary judgment even when the trial court's reasoning may be incomplete or incorrect.
Abraham claimed a water leak caused mold damage to rental premises covered by a residential tenant insurance policy. The insurer denied coverage based…
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 Construction Defects cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the final summary judgment denying coverage under a residential tenant insurance policy. The insured claimed that a water leak caused mold damage to the premises. The insurer defended, claiming both a misrepresentation in the application, in that the premises were in fact being used for a commercial enterprise, rather than for residential purposes, and also that the policy excluded mold damage. In its motion for summary judgment the insurer argued both the misrepresentation as well as the exclusions from coverage and the fact that no water leak was found in the premises. The trial court granted súmmary judgment, finding a material misrepresentation.
Although we conclude that a material issue of fact remained as to misrepresentation since there was no evidence in the record as to whether the premises were being used for commercial purposes at the time of the application, we can affirm where there is any basis to support the judgment. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 781 So.2d 638, 644 (Fla.1999). (“[I]f a trial court reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons, it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.”). The insurance company presented undisputed evidence that there was no water leak, and the policy did not cover mold unconnected to a peril covered by the policy. Defects in the construction process, as the expert testified was how the mold occurred, are not covered by the policy. Therefore, the summary judgment was appropriately entered.
WARNER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.