Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals defines Structural Damage as Damage to a Building's Structural Integrity. Hegel v. First Liberty Ins. Corp., (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2015) 2015 WL 821146

The Hegels had a homeowner's insurance policy with First Liberty for their Spring Hills, Florida residence. That policy insured against "Sinkhole Loss" as an exception to the policy's exclusion for damage caused by earth movement. Under the policy, "Sinkhole Loss means structural damage to the building, including the foundation, caused by sinkhole activity. The policy, however, did not define the term "structural damage."

The Hegels filed a claim under the policy alleging that their home had suffered "progressive damage to the walls and floors" due to sinkhole activity. First Liberty hired structural engineers to investigate the damage and denied the Hegels' claim stating that the residence "had not sustained structural damage to the building or foundation" and that the damage was "related to normal concrete shrinkage, differential settlement, and improper embedment of the foundation." The Hegels filed suit in Florida State Court for breach of contract, alleging that First Liberty improperly denied their claim for a "sinkhole loss." First Liberty removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The trial court, awarded damages plus prejudgment interest to the Hegels. Liberty Mutual timely appealed.

The essence of the dispute both in the trial court and on appeal is the definition of "structural damage," a term that was not defined in the homeowner's insurance policy or the version of the Florida sinkhole-insurance statute applicable to the claim. The Hegels alleged that the sinkhole caused "structural damage" to their home as evidenced by the progressive damage to the walls and floors. Liberty Mutual disagreed and argued that "structural damage" and damage to a structure are not one and the same.

On appeal the Eleventh Circuit reversed the trial court's decision. The Eleventh Circuit held that, the plain meaning of the phrase "structural damage to the building" in an insurance contract where there term is undefined, means "damage to the structural integrity of a building." It does not mean any damage to the structure, which as the Hegels argued is synonymous with any physical damage to the building. The Eleventh Circuit stated that to equate "structural damage" with "damage to a structure" is unreasonable as such a definition renders the term "structural" as meaningless in the insurance contract.

Hegel v. First Liberty Ins. Corp., (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2015) 2015 WL 821146

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Our Awards and Professional Legal Associations

  • Rated by Super Lawyers - William C. Last, Jr. - Visit superlawyers.com
  • Avvo Rating - 9.3 Superb - Top Attorney Construction
  • AV Peer Review Rated
  • The State Bar of California
  • San Matco County Bar Association - SMCBA
  • LACBA - Los Angeles County Bar Association
  • American Bar Association Forum on the Construction Industry
  • Bay Area Chapter - SMACNA
  • The Associated General Contractors of America
  • American Subcontractors Association
  • Peninsula Builders Exchange
  • CLSA
Email Us For A Response

Contact our attorneys now

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

Last & Faoro
177 Bovet Road, Suite 550
San Mateo, CA 94402

Toll Free: 866-904-4725
Phone: 650-425-7679
Fax: 650-696-8365
Map & Directions