After a nearly three-year battle, Jessica Prats, of the Tampa office, prevailed on a Motion for Final Summary Judgment in a case involving alleged roof damage and ensuing interior water damage. Plaintiffs were seeking $65,000.00 in damages, plus fees and costs. However, when the carrier inspected the roof, it found no storm-related damage; only a dead valley, which had been accumulating water on and off over the course of seven or eight years. It was through that valley water had been leaking.

At the hearing, Jessica argued there was simply no evidence of storm damage to the roof, nor any peril created opening which was essential to trigger coverage under the policy.

Plaintiffs counsel argued the home inspection did not show any openings or defects but it was only after the storm that the water entered the residence, thus, there was an issue of fact as to the cause of the water intrusion, thus defeating summary judgment. Jessica turned to the wear and tear provision in the policy and showed it to the Court. The Court ultimately found there was no evidence of storm damage, and that wear and tear is explicitly excluded under the policy.

As a result of a prior Proposal for Settlement, the carrier is entitled to pursue fees and costs.