The court rejected the insurer's motion to dismiss after the the insured's vessel sank during a hurricane. Knight v. Market Am. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71973 April 16, 2025).
Hurricane Ian sank a yacht owned by the Knight Living Trust. The Trust insured the yacht under a policy with Markel. The policy contained a haul out provision stating,
If a windstorm warning is issued for the location where the insured yacht is located, the insured yacht shall be on land. If a location is shown below, the insured yacht shall be inland at the specific location as described.
ASHORE ON THE UNITED STATES MAINLAND, AND WITHIN THE LISTED NAVIGATIONAL LIMITS.
Before Hurricane Ian struck, windstorm warnings were issued. The yacht was moored at the marina. Efforts to have the vessel hauled out of the marina were unsuccessful. The marina stated it was unable to haul out the vessel. Other marinas also refused the request the haul out the vessel. The Trust asserted that despite its best efforts, no method or means reasonably existed to haul out the vessel and place it on land. Hurricane Ian came ashore and the vessel sank.
A claim we filed, but Markel denied the claim because of non-compliance with the haul out provision.
The Trust sued for a declaration that the policy provided covert for the loss. The Trust relied upon a Florida statute providing that a breach by the insured of a provision of an insurance policy did not void the policy unless the breach or violation increased the hazard by any means within the control of the insured. The Trust argued that the failure to haul out the vessel did not increase the risk of loss by any means within the control of the insured,thereby precluding Markel from denying the claim.
The Trust's second theory was that the haul out provision violated the public policy of Florida which prohibited requiring vessel owners to contractually or otherwise be obligated to remove their vessels from their marina slips upon the issuance of la windstorm warning.
Market moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The court noted that an insured could prevail under the Florida statute if the insurer could not prove the cause of loss was within the control of the insured. The Trust stated a plausible cause of action pursuant to the Florida statute.
Regarding the Trust's second argument, it had to prove the existence of a public policy. The Trust had shown that in some contexts Florida had stated through a statute a public policy similar to the one it asserted here. This was sufficient to establish a plausible claim which allowed the Trust to proceed with its obligation to establish such a public policy in the context of marine insurance policies.
Therefore, the motion to dismiss was denied.
