this is a placeholder image because this post does not contain a featured image

No Florida DCA case Law on EIFS exclusions

Submitted by Jessica Gregory and Carri Leininger on 27 Dec, 2024

Commercial General Liability Policies today will often include an exclusion related to installation of an Exterior insulation and finish system or EIFS. Some of the EIFS exclusions contain broader language then others. 

For example, one version we have seen reads:

This policy excludes coverage for the insured’s work “with respect to any exterior component, fixture or feature of any structure if an EIFS is used on any part of that structure”. (emphasis added).

Another version we have seen contains narrower language, which reads:

This policy excludes coverage for “your product” or “your work” with respect to any exterior component, fixture or feature of any structure if an “exterior insulation and finish system”, or any substantially similar system, is used on the part of that structure containing that component, fixture or feature. (emphasis added).

To date, no Florida court has analyzed the scope of an EIFS exclusion in a CGL policy. 

However, numerous federal district courts, relying on case law from other jurisdictions, have found that the broader EIFS exclusion which excludes coverage for “ the insured’s work “with respect to any exterior component, fixture or feature of any structure if an [EIFS] is used on any part of that structure” “clear[ly]” and “unambiguous[ly]” bars coverage for damage resulting from defective work performed on the exterior of a building if EIFS was used on any part of the building, even where the insured’s work did not in any way come into contact with EIFS. See Amerisure Insurance Co. v. Auchter Co., Case No. 3:16cv407, 2017 WL 3584896, *23 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2017) (collecting cases); see also BITCO Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., 379 F. Supp. 3d 1230, 1241 (N.D. Fla. 2019); see also First Mercury Ins. Co. v. Miller Roofing Enters., Case No. 2:11cv105, 2013 WL 662970, at *2-4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2013).

However, it seems that if the CGL policy contains the narrower exclusion, courts will not apply the exclusion to bar coverage for a subcontractor whose work is unrelated to the EIFS system, simply because EIFS was used on the exterior. See BITCO Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., No. 3:17CV262/MCR/CJK, 2018 WL 5726233, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2018).