The insurer successfully moved for summary judgment, eliminating the insured’s claim for roof damage due to windstorm. Mulas v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20537 (Jan. 30, 2026).

The insureds’ commercial property sustained windstorm damage durng Hurricane Ian. Westchester denied the claim. The insureds believed Westchester wrongfully denied coverage for roof damage and various interior damage to property. The insureds also argued that Westchester’s actual cash value (ACV) payment did not reflect the fully insured loss.

The insureds sued and Westchester moved for summary judgment. Westchester argued the roof damage was not covered because Hurricane Ian did not cause the damage. Westchester hired an engineer who determined the roof damage was not caused by wind from Hurricane Ian. Westchester pointed out that the insureds’ expert also found no wind damage on the roof. The insureds offered no other evidence suggesting the hurricane caused roof damage. Therefore, the insureds could not show that Westchester breached the policy by denying coverage.

Westchester also denied coverage for interior ceiing moisture damage. The policy provided Westchester would not pay for the loss of or damage to “[t]he interior of any building or structure . . . caused by or resulting from rain . . . whether driven by wind or not, unless . . . the building first sustains damage by a Covered Cause of Loss to its roof or walls through which the rain . . . enters.” In other words, the policy only provided coverage to the interior of the home if the property’s exterior first sustained covered windstorm damage that created an opening allowing the water intrusion. Westchester asserted Hurricane Ian did not create such an opening, as shown by the lack of wind damage to the roof.

The court agreed. To establish coverage, Hurrican Ian must have caused the opening in the roof that permitted water intrusion. The insureds produced no evidence suggesting Hurricane Ian caused any damage to the roof surface. Therefore, they did not show interior damage was covered under the policy. Westchester was granted summary judgment on this issue.

The insureds also sought coverage for damage to various exterior items. Westchester issued a payment based on the field adjuster’s estimate minus the applicable deductible. The insureds argued this payment did not sufficiently cover their loss. The insureds pubic adjuster submitted an estimate in which the ACV and Replacement Cost Value (RCV) were identical and valuing the depreciation at zero

Courts had found that when ACV and RCV were estimated to be identical, the estimate was really one for RCV, not ACV, because it did not account for depreciation. Westchester acknowledged coverage for the damaged exterior items and issued payment based on the adjuster’s cash value determination. The insureds’ did not provide a competing ACV estimate. Westchester was also granted summary judgment on this issue.