Curious language in a few local governments' decrees might provide interesting ads for a "Coronavirus Disinfection training course," but they aren't likely to affect the interpretation of insurance policies. | Kelly Sikkema/Unsplash
Emergency orders by local governments that said COVID-19 causes property damage don’t mean insurance carriers will have to pay damage claims, a Tampa attorney said.
Matthew Lavisky, a partner in Tampa of Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, noted the curious language of the emergency orders. Broward County and Panama City both said the coronavirus causes property damage. According to JDSupra, each included the following wording in emergency orders and resolutions: “because the virus is physically causing property damage due to its proclivity to attach to surfaces for prolonged periods of time.”
Lavisky called the word choice curious because property insurance policies include language that says property damages are required for there to be a covered loss, according to JDSupra.
Soon after Broward County’s order, someone began to advertise a coronavirus disinfection training course. Lavisky told JDSupra the ad said Broward County blamed the coronavirus for property damage. The ad asked if insurance coverage is possible under HB7065 which allows for a $3,000 assignment of benefits for emergency services mitigation. Florida Statute section 627.7152 describes an assignor acting under an urgent or emergency circumstance to protect property from damage.
“We assume, for purposes of this article, that the virus is not causing damage to property as would commonly be understood by a court. Does a county or city order that says otherwise change the analysis? In my view, the answer is no,” Lavisky told JDSupra.
He told JDSupra Florida courts aren’t likely to look to local ordinances to define terms.
A Florida court would be unlikely to look to a local ordinance or order to define an undefined term. If a policy term is undefined, Florida courts must give the term its plain meaning. To define a term, they use legal and non-legal dictionary definitions for the meaning, according to Deutsch v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co.
Levisky cited the example of Glaser v. GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co. and other court rulings in which the courts relied on ordinary meanings and policy language. In Glaser, instead of looking to the Florida Building Code to define policy terms, the court used the policy language and gave words their ordinary meaning.
He also wrote on JDSupra that courts look to the statutes that were in effect when a policy was assigned. The Eleventh Circuit summarized Florida law in Shelton V. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. to say a “statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.”
A local ordinance or decree cannot retroactively change what statutes govern an insurance policy, Levisky told JDSupra.
Florida statutes preempt local ordinance in any case, Levisky told JDSupra. In Classy Cycles v. Bay County, a Florida appellate court found that state statutes preempt ordinances adopted by a county and city setting minimum insurance requirements for rental scooters.
“The language may provide intriguing advertising for a ‘Coronavirus Disinfection training course.’ But the orders are not likely to affect the interpretation of insurance policies,” Levisky wrote on JDSupra.
Alerts Sign-up