No Coverage for Roof Collapse During Hurricane

    The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that the insured's roof collapse was not covered. Exclusive Real Estate Inv., L.L.C. v. S.G.L. No. 1, Ltd., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 29368 (5th Cir. Nov. 3, 2023). 

    A building owned by Exclusive Real Estate partially collapsed during a rain-storm. The insurer, SGL, inspected the roof and determined that there was no coverage. Exclusive sued SGL for breach of contract and bad faith. SGL moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the district court. Exclusive appealed. 

    The poicy covered "direct physical loss to the property" caused by windstorms. Exclusions, however, precluded coverage for losses "caused by rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust unless the direct force of wind or hail damages the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust enters through this opening." 

    Two investigators hired by SGL found that rain caused the roof to collapse and none of the damage was caused by wind. An employee of Exclusive was in the building when the roof collapsed and testified that he saw rain blowing sideways during the storm. No other evidence was produced by Exclusive to show the collapse was due to wind.

    The Fifth Circuit found that Exclusive's relied solely on the employee's testimony that the rain was blowing sideways and did not present any additional evidence. Exclusive had no expert witness to sustain its claim. On the other hand, SGL submitted evidence through depositions, reports, and photographs supporting its position that the roof collapse was not caused by wind. The district court properly found that Exclusive failed to create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment.