Representative Image (AI-generated)
The damage occurred in March 2014, and the insurer denied her claim that June, setting off a legal battle that continued for years. Moise’s home was insured under a policy that took effect on May 8, 2013, according to the court’s opinion. On March 1, 2014, demolition activity at a neighbouring property allegedly caused vibrations that damaged the house’s floors, walls and ceiling. Her initial complaint, filed on August 27, 2014, alleged that the insurer had failed to cover the loss. Homeowners Choice arranged an inspection by Bracken Engineering, which examined the property on May 6, 2014. The company subsequently denied the claim on June 6, 2014, concluding that the damage resulted from material shrinkage or settlement and fell within the policy’s exclusions. The trial court denied the insurer’s request for summary judgment on the exclusion issue in December 2019. The case went to a jury trial in November 2022, and the jury found that the damage was not excluded under the policy. Final judgment was entered on May 1, 2024.
Because the court distinguished damage caused by vibrations without actual earth movement from damage resulting from earth movement or settlement covered by the policy’s exclusions, this distinction became central to the dispute.
Moise said she was inside the property during the demolition and felt the shaking. What happens when construction work on a neighbouring property damages a home, but the homeowner’s insurance company refuses to pay for repairs? For Sandra Moise of Miami, Florida, the dispute centred on whether vibrations from demolition work could be excluded under policy provisions covering earth movement and settlement. She also noticed picture frames moving and later discovered damage to the house. The insurer’s field adjuster inspected it later that month. The insurance policy covered direct physical losses occurring during the policy period, subject to its exclusions. These included damage caused by earthquakes, landslides, sinking or shifting earth, soil expansion or contraction, and the settling or cracking of foundations. The company argued that the damage to Moise’s home fell within these provisions. It maintained that the cracks and other problems were attributable to settlement or pre-existing conditions rather than vibrations alone. Moise’s expert, Alfredo Brizuela, offered a different explanation. His report stated that the impact of heavy construction equipment at the adjacent property generated vibrations that travelled through the limestone subsoil and affected the home’s foundation structure. In an affidavit, Brizuela clarified that the damage resulted from vibrations, rather than actual displacement or movement of the earth. It subsequently restricted certain arguments about whether vibration itself constituted an excluded cause of loss.