Case No. 2:24-cv-534-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla., Feb. 2, 2026)
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division
Summary by: Allison Van Fleet
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Judge Sheri Polster Chappell, granted summary judgment for the insurer defendant Westchester in this Hurricane Ian case. The court found there was no coverage for interior damage due to the policy’s peril-created opening requirementwhere the homeowners provided no evidence that wind damaged the roof. The court also held there was no breach of contract where the homeowners provided no evidence that Westchester failed to pay the correct actual cash value (“ACV”) amount.
With regard to the roof, the homeowners’ retained engineer opined that through the site inspection and review of historical aerial images there was no apparent wind damage to the roof surfacing. Thus, the court found that the was no dispute thatHurricane Ian did not damage the roof and the insurer did not breach the policy by denying coverage for the roof.
As for the interior, the insurer denied coverage as the policy contained a provision that interior damage caused by or resulting from rain, whether driven by wind or not, is not covered unless the building or structure first sustains damage by a covered cause of loss to the roof or walls through which rain enters. Westchester argued that since there was no wind damage to the roof, the interior damage was not covered. The homeowners’ expert opinion was that “the moisture stains observed along the ceiling are the result of wind-driven rain associated with Hurricane Ian through the roofing surface.” The Court held thatfor there to be coverage Hurricane Ian must have caused an opening in the building or roof that permitted the water intrusion. The Court reviewed the homeowners’ own engineer report and found that the homeowners had no evidence that Hurricane Ian created an opening in the building that allowedthe water intrusion.
The homeowners also sought damages to the exterior. During the claim investigation Westchester found some covered damage to the exterior and issued payment, less the applicable deductible. When an insured disputes an insurer’s payment as inadequate, the insurer has the burden to showw that it paid “at least the actual cash value of the insured loss.” Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Clark, 410 So. 3d 99, 111 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2025). Once the insurer provides its ACV estimate, the burden shifts to the insured to demonstrate that theinsurer’s payment did not reflect the amount of the loss. Here, the plaintiffs submitted a pre-suit estimate with equal ACV and RCV amounts, calculating the depreciation as zero. Later, years after suit was filed, they submitted a second estimate thataccounted for actual depreciation (not zero depreciation). The Court found the homeowners failed to establish a breach at the time the lawsuit was filed because they had present no pre-suit estimate that properly accounted for depreciation. Thus, the Middle District of Florida found there was no dispute as to the ACV at the time of the loss and granted summary judgment for the insurer.
