Building Vacant for Over 30 Consecutive Days Provides No Coverage for Water Damage

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/insureds-claim-hot-water-lack-barry-zalma-esq-cfe and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 3950 posts.

Coran Albert appealed the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company, dismissing his claims seeking insurance coverage because the property was vacant for 90 days before the loss. In Doucet Services, LLC v. Coran Albert, et al., No. 21-223, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third Circuit (October 13, 2021) the Court of Appeals was asked to ignore the exclusion.

FACTS

Mr. Albert was sued by Doucet Services, LLC, for payment for remediation work performed at the rental arising from damages occurring when a pipe burst during severe cold weather on or around January 18, 2018. As part of that suit, Mr. Albert filed a third-party demand against GeoVera seeking coverage and payment under his insurance policy. GeoVera in turn filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that coverage was excluded under the policy, as the rental had been vacant for over thirty days at the time of the damages. The trial court granted GeoVera’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing Mr. Albert’s claims against it with prejudice.

While the rental did have water and electricity, Mr. Albert admitted in deposition that gas was not connected at the time of the damage. He stated that it had been without gas service for roughly ninety-eight days prior to the pipe bursting. He further stated that the water heater for the home was gas, meaning that hot water was not possible for the rental at the time of the accident in January of 2018.

The rental property had no tenant living in it, no hot water, nor any furnishings for almost 100 days prior to damage caused by the freezing pipe. Therefore, under the express terms of the policy, it is clear that the rental was vacant for over thirty days when the damage occurred and that coverage for the water damage at issue was, therefore, excluded. We can find no error in the trial court’s granting of GeoVera’s motion for summary judgment.

For the above reasons, the decision of the trial court is hereby affirmed. Costs of this appeal are hereby assessed against Mr. Albert.

ZALMA OPINION

It is amazing that this simple, clear and easy to understand provision of a policy of insurance resulted in a trial, let alone an appeal. This seems to have been a total waste of time for the insurer, the insured, and the court.