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 skilled proof to rebut the conclusions of the West American’s three specialists, 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 business store buildings. In 2021, the Insured, via its public adjuster, filed a declare below the property coverage, alleging {that a} Might 2020 hailstorm induced vital harm to the roofs of two buildings. West American retained an impartial adjuster to examine the loss. Subsequently, West American issued cost for the damages it deemed to be lined 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. Primarily based on this inspection, West American suggested the Insured that the coverage would offer no additional protection based mostly on the appliance 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 specialists 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 skilled 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 skilled proof concerning 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 lined below 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 below 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 regulation, the courtroom 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 perform as a barrier to the weather to the extent that it did earlier than the loss or harm occurred.”
In reaffirming the district courtroom’s resolution, the courtroom concluded that the Insured failed to supply any skilled proof to rebut the conclusions reached by the three specialists retained by West American, all of whom decided that the harm to the roof was purely beauty.
The courtroom additional held that the testimony offered by the Insured’s proprietor and public adjuster didn’t qualify as skilled testimony and was subsequently inadequate to determine the existence of non-cosmetic harm. The courtroom emphasised that skilled testimony is essential in disputes involving technical issues like roof harm, particularly when an insurance coverage coverage exclusion is at subject. With out such proof, the insured celebration can’t successfully problem the insurer’s utility of a coverage exclusion.
Conclusion
In affirming abstract judgment in favor of West American, the courtroom strengthened the precept that skilled proof is required to defeat abstract judgment in instances like this the place an insurer is relying upon skilled 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 may reject the defendant-insurer’s skilled opinion and the courtroom 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 celebration to this motion.
About The Authors
