[UPDATED 2018] Does Homeowners Insurance Cover Pool Damage? {Read This}
[UPDATED 2018] Does Homeowners Insurance Cover Pool Damage? {Read This}
Many homeowners have pools here in Florida. Some have cages over the pool, some pools are in the open and others are separated from the home by a patio, a garden or yard. When storms role through and cause damage to the pool, an issue can arise as to if the damage to the pool is covered and if so, under what coverage. Insurance policies generally have one amount of coverage for the dwelling of the home and then another smaller amount of coverage for “other structures”. When does a pool become an appurtenant or other structure can determine which coverage amount applies. It is always important when determining this issue to read your policy because not all insurance policies are the same.
How do we know what is an appurtenant or attached structure and what is an “other structure”? The definition of appurtenant according to Fontenot v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 517 So.2d 1044, (Ct. Ap. La. 1987) is “generally a thing is appurtenant to another when it is necessarily connected with the use and enjoyment of the latter, as a garage or tool shed to a house.” Brown v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 177 N.Y.S. 618 held “the thing appurtenant need not be one of necessity. It may be one of convenience only, but it must be connected in use with the principal thing. In other words, a thing is appurtenant to something else only when it stands in the relation of an incident to a principal, and is necessarily connected with the use and enjoyment of the latter.” According to Fl. Stat. §810.011, ““structure” means a building of any kind, either temporary or permanent, which has a roof over it, together with the curtilage thereof.” Given these definitions, we need to look at the facts of each case to determine if the pool would be considered an appurtenant structure or other structure.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania addressed the pool issue in Arch v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12719 (U.S. Dist. Ct. Pa. 1988), in which the court held a swimming pool was an “other structure”. The policy, in this case, provided coverage as follows:
A) Coverage A – Dwelling
We Cover:
a. The dwelling on the residence premises shown on the Declarations and mainly used as a private residence, and including attached structures and attached wall-to-wall carpeting.
B) Coverage B – Other Structures
We cover other structures on the residence premises. They must be separated from the dwelling by clear space. Structures connected to the dwelling by only a fence, utility line, or similar connection are considered other structures. The limit of liability for this coverage is stated on the Declarations.”
In this case the pool was approximately 12 feet from the dwelling with a concrete patio from the house to the pool. The homeowners were trying to argue that the pool damage was covered under Coverage A which provided coverage in the amount of $75,800.00. Coverage B only provided coverage in the amount of $7,580.00 and the estimated damage to the pool was $22,417.00. When reading the policy, the court concluded that any reasonably intelligent person reading Coverage B would conclude that for a structure to be considered an “other structure”, it must be separated from the dwelling by clear space. The court found the pool was separated by a clear space because it did not share a common foundation or roof. They analyzed this as follows:
In addition, the pool does not become “attached” to the dwelling, as plaintiffs argue, because of the patio. A patio is not akin to a party wall which serves the function of attaching a garage, for example, to a dwelling. Rather, a patio merely comprises part of one’s yard as does any lawn or garden. The twelve feet of space could have just as easily consisted of such a lawn or garden. Certainly, one cannot maintain that a lawn or garden can serve the purpose of attaching a swimming pool to a dwelling. It just so happened that in the case sub judice, the space consists of a concrete patio. As indicated above, if a roof extended from the dwelling over the patio and over the pool so as to form a type of arcade where one did not have to exit the dwelling to enter the pool, our conclusion would be different. However, since the pool sits by itself, twelve feet from the dwelling, it is certainly separated from the dwelling by clear space.
Therefore, if Florida follows this opinion or reasoning, in order for the pool to be part of the house for purposes of insurance coverage, it must be connected to the house by a common roof. Otherwise, the pool would be covered under Coverage B of the policy.
Would there be coverage if the amount of rainfall from a storm or hurricane caused the hydrostatic pressure to change and the pool popped out of the ground causing damage to the deck. The Fifth Circuit of Appeals addressed this issue here in Florida and looked to the policy to make this determination. In the case of Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 157 So.3d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), a tropical storm partially emptied the in ground swimming pool because it was overflowing. The next day, the homeowner discovered that the pool had lifted due to subsurface water accumulation underneath the pool during the storm which exerted hydrostatic pressure on the partially emptied pool causing the pool shell to lift out of the ground damaging the pool shell, the deck, the rock garden and the waterfall. A claim was filed but the insurance company denied it based on a Water Exclusion which read as follows:
SECTION I – EXCLUSIONS
1. We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.1
. . . .
c. Water Damage, meaning:
(1) Flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of a body of water, or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind;
. . . .
(3) Water below the surface of the ground, including water which exerts pressure on or seeps or leaks through a building, sidewalk, driveway, foundation, swimming pool or other structure.
The Court ruled that the damage to the pool deck, rock garden and waterfall was not an ensuing loss but was rather expressly excluded in the policy as a loss that occurred directly or indirectly from subsurface water pressure.
Therefore, based on the above, it appears that if the pool is an in-ground pool with a screened enclosure which is attached to the house, or if there is a lanai which the screened enclosure is attached to, you may have an argument that the pool is an appurtenant structure and covered under Coverage A which provides coverage for the dwelling. If the pool is separated from the house by a patio, garden or yard, it will be likely be considered an “other structure’ and would be covered under Coverage B.