TAMPA HUB – Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. (QPWB) is proud to announce a significant appellate victory led by Partner Dorothy DiFiore, who successfully defended a national insurance carrier against an appeal challenging the enforceability of a Limited Water Damage Coverage Endorsement in a Florida homeowners’ insurance policy. Plaintiffs initially sought more than $80,000 in property damages following a sewer line backup but were ultimately awarded only $10,000, the maximum payable under the policy endorsement.

Overview of the Case

This case arose from a homeowner dispute over insurance coverage following a sewer line backup. The Plaintiffs filed suit seeking complete indemnification—including full tear-out and replacement costs, as well as additional living expenses—arguing that their homeowner’s insurance policy should provide broader protection for internal plumbing failures.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs asserted that the backup originated from within the home’s plumbing system and that, as such, it fell outside the general water damage exclusions. They maintained that the insurer was obligated to cover the full scope of damages, relying on ambiguity and precedent arguments to expand the policy’s scope.

However, QPWB’s legal team took a precise, contract-driven approach. Partner Dorothy DiFiore led the appellate strategy, focusing on the unambiguous language of the Limited Water Damage Endorsement, which expressly capped coverage at $10,000 for damages caused by water backups and overflows from within the plumbing system.

Key Difference-Makers

• Dorothy DiFiore - Partner

Claims Made Against Our Client

• Plaintiffs sought full indemnification for all property damage resulting from a sewer line backup, including full tear-out, plumbing system replacement, and additional living expenses.
  
• They alleged that the insurer’s policy language supported broader coverage for internal water damage and that the Limited Water Damage Endorsement was ambiguous.
  
• Plaintiffs argued that the water’s origin within the home’s plumbing system exempted it from general water damage exclusions.
  

Defense Strategy

QPWB’s defense strategy centered on reinforcing the plain meaning of the contract language, ensuring consistency between trial and appellate arguments, and emphasizing the broader legal significance of the court’s interpretation. The team highlighted how:

• The Limited Water Damage Coverage Endorsement unambiguously capped all water damage-related claims at $10,000;
  
• The exclusions in the policy clearly overrode any ambiguity arguments;
  
• And the origin of the water was immaterial, so long as the event met the conditions specified in the endorsement.
  

To support this position, Dorothy referenced favorable precedent, which underscored how Florida courts have historically upheld similar endorsements. Her briefing also clarified how this case differed from decisions where exclusions had been found vague or insufficiently specific.

Impact on the Final Outcome

The appellate court issued a ruling affirming the trial court’s Summary Judgment in favor of QPWB’s client. As a result, the Plaintiffs’ attempt to collect over $80,000 was denied, and the insurer’s liability remained capped at $10,000 as stated in the endorsement.

Beyond the individual win, the ruling has broader implications for Florida’s insurance industry. As policyholders continue to litigate water damage claims arising from failing plumbing systems, this case reinforces the viability and enforceability of Limited Water Damage Coverage Endorsements. It also sets a precedent for how insurers, including the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA), can manage risk and defend claims from policyholders of insolvent carriers.

The decision affirms that clear, well-drafted exclusions and endorsements will be upheld—even when plaintiffs attempt to rely on policy ambiguity to expand coverage.

Unique Aspects of this Case

A key challenge in this case involved distinguishing the broad exclusionary language in this policy from exclusions in prior cases that Florida courts had interpreted more narrowly. Opposing counsel leaned heavily on earlier decisions that had found ambiguity in similar water damage exclusions.

Dorothy’s appellate brief skillfully argued that the source of the water was irrelevant, given that the policy’s language clearly limited the insurer’s liability regardless of whether the water originated inside or outside the home. The court accepted this interpretation, marking an important win for insurers who rely on well-drafted endorsements to limit exposure in water damage claims.

Predicting the Future

This appellate win reinforces QPWB’s leadership in insurance defense and strengthens its track record of success in complex policy interpretation and coverage limitation disputes. It also provides a critical roadmap for insurers navigating Florida’s evolving legal landscape on sewer backups and aging infrastructure.

With Dorothy’s successful defense, QPWB continues to set high standards for appellate advocacy, demonstrating the power of a meticulous, text-based defense strategy that not only defends insurance companies—but also contributes to shaping Florida’s legal precedent in insurance law.

Key Actions in This Case

🔹 Appellate Briefing Rooted in Contract Language: Focused on the policy's plain terms and exclusionary clauses.
🔹 Strategic Use of Precedent: Leveraged prior appellate decisions to validate the enforceability of the $10K cap.
🔹 Clarified Legal Distinctions: Effectively distinguished the Limited Water Damage Endorsement from broader exclusion interpretations in other cases.

About QPWB

Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. is the largest minority and women-owned law firm in the United States. With 48 offices nationwide and over 100 practice areas, QPWB provides top-tier legal services in litigation, regulatory matters, and corporate counsel across a wide spectrum of industries.