Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company v. Richard and Nancy Jones; Florida 5th DCA, 5D23-0376

Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company (Farm Bureau) appealed an order granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Richard and Nancy Jones. The order found the hurricane deductible in the policy issued by Farm Bureau could not be applied to the loss caused by an unrelated, local hailstorm that occurred during a “hurricane occurrence.” The case involved the interpretation of a calendar year hurricane deductible endorsement in the policy which permitted the carrier to apply the hurricane deductible for an “event of the first windstorm loss caused by a single hurricane occurrence.” The endorsement defined “hurricane occurrence” as a period that “[b]egins at the time a hurricane watch or warning is issued for any part of Florida” and “[e]nds 72 hours following the termination of the last hurricane watch or hurricane warning issued for any part of” the state.

The parties agreed the loss at issue occurred during a “hurricane occurrence.” The issue was that the hurricane, Hurricane Isaias, was making its way through New England at the time an unrelated, local hailstorm caused damage to the insured property in Jacksonville, Florida. The Fifth District Court of Appeals took issue with the the fact that the policy provided coverage for a “hurricane occurrence,” which was defined as a time period, stating hurricanes and windstorms cause losses, “time periods do not.” The carrier argued the loss occurred during a “hurricane occurrence” as defined by the policy and, therefore, it was irrelevant that the hailstorm that caused the loss was unrelated to Hurricane Isaias. The court rejected this argument, finding that the carrier’s interpretation of the policy would require the court to change the term “caused by a single hurricane occurrence” to “during a single hurricane occurrence,” which the court did not find reasonable. The court ruled the more reasonable interpretation of the term “hurricane occurrence” was that the loss had to have been caused by the hurricane, affirming the lower courts ruling in favor of the insureds.