UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23346-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

AM CRESPI MIAMI, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CENTURY SURETY COMPANY,

 Defendant. 

______________________________/ 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Century Surety Company’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment, ECF No. [27] (“Motion”). Plaintiff Sandra Walker filed a Response in 

Opposition, ECF No. [44] (“Response”), to which Defendant filed a Reply, ECF No. [46] 

(“Reply”). The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, all opposing and supporting 

submissions,1 the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff seeks recovery from Defendant under a surplus lines commercial insurance policy 

(“Policy”) for damage to two tenant-occupied buildings caused by a backup from the properties’ 

plumbing system. On August 16, 2022, Plaintiff initiated this breach of contract action against 

Defendant in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida, 

Case No. 2022 015395 CA 01. ECF No. [1]. Defendant thereafter removed the action to federal 

1 Defendant filed a Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. [28] (“SMF”), with its Motion for 

Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed a Statement of Material Facts in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment and a Statement of Additional Material Facts (“SAMF”), ECF No. [43], with its 

Response to Defendant’s Motion. 

Case 1:22-cv-23346-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2023 Page 1 of 12
Case No. 22-cv-23346-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

court and on October 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint. ECF No. [8]. Plaintiff 

asserts a single count of breach of contract, alleging that Defendant breached the Policy by denying 

full coverage and refusing to “pay the full amount of the claim or in the alternative, a reasonable 

amount.” ECF No. [8] ¶ 8. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s failure to do so “was contrary to the 

terms of the policy and/or Florida law.” Id. 

On July 31, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Motion seeking summary judgment.

Defendant asserts that the undisputed material facts establish that the Policy’s Amendatory 

Endorsement applies to Plaintiff’s claim and limits Plaintiff’s loss recovery to $5,000.00 per 

building and Defendant has already tendered in full the $10,000.00 payment owed. Plaintiff 

responds that the Amendatory Endorsement is ambiguous as to whether it applies to water damage 

regardless of whether the damage originated from on or off the premises. Plaintiff contends that 

because the parties dispute the source of the water damage, Defendant has not shown that it is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant replies that the Amendatory Endorsement 

unambiguously applies regardless of where the water damage originated from, and Defendant is

consequently entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

A. MATERIAL FACTS

Based on the Parties’ briefings and the evidence in the record, the following facts are not 

genuinely in dispute unless otherwise noted. 

On June 17, 2019, Plaintiff purchased commercial property consisting of two buildings 

located at 8227 Crespi Blvd. and 8235 Crespi Blvd., Miami Beach, Florida 33141 (“Properties”). 

SMF ¶ 1; RSMF ¶ 1. Defendant thereafter issued Plaintiff an “all risk” commercial surplus lines 

insurance policy, Policy No. CCP 972805, with effective dates of March 20, 2021 to March 20, 

2022. See generally ECF No. [8-1]; SMF ¶ 11; RSMF ¶¶ 11, 49. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 

alleges that during the policy period, and on or about January 15, 2022, the property was damaged 

Case 1:22-cv-23346-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2023 Page 2 of 12
Case No. 22-cv-23346-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

3

by backup from the property’s plumbing system. ECF No. [8] ¶ 5. On June 2, 2022, Defendant 

tendered payment of the $5,000.00 per location sub-limit to Plaintiff, totaling $10,000.00, pursuant 

to the Policy’s Amendatory Endorsement. SMF ¶ 33; RSMF ¶ 33. It is disputed whether this 

payment was proper under the Policy. Id.

The Policy generally covers direct physical damage that occurs during the policy period.

In the case of water damage, the Policy covers damage and subsequent repairs to any part of the 

building or structure or to the system or appliance from which the water or other substance escapes, 

subject to the Policy’s applicable conditions, exceptions, and limitations. RSMF ¶ 50; ECF No. 

[8-1]. The Policy’s coverage related to “Commercial Property Conditions” provides: 

H. POLICY PERIOD, COVERAGE TERRITORY

Under this Coverage Part: 

1. We cover loss or damage commencing: 

a. During the policy period shown in the Declarations; and

b. Within the coverage territory.

ECF No. [8-1] at 81.

2

The Building and Personal Property Coverage Form contains the following provisions:

A. Coverage 

We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property 

at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from 

any Covered Cause of Loss.

ECF No. [8-1] at 56.

The Building and Personal Property Coverage Form is subject to the Causes of Loss –

Special Form, which provides in relevant part:

2 The Court uses the pagination generated by the electronic CM/ECF database, which appears in 

the headers of all court filings.

Case 1:22-cv-23346-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2023 Page 3 of 12
Case No. 22-cv-23346-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

4

A. Covered Causes Of Loss

When Special is shown in the Declarations, Covered Causes of Loss 

means direct physical loss unless the loss is excluded or limited in this 

policy.

ECF No. [8-1] at 107. 

The Policy also contains an Amendatory Endorsement – Limited Property Extensions 

Form (“Amendatory Endorsement”) that provides in relevant part:

Sewer, Drain, or Sump Backup or Overflow 

You may extend the insurance provided by endorsement to include loss, whether 

it originates on or off the described premises, caused by water that backs up or 

overflows or is otherwise discharged from a sewer, drain, sump or sump pump 

or related equipment. However, we will not pay for direct physical loss or 

damage to Covered Property caused by or resulting from continued or repeated 

back up or overflow of water over a period 14 days. The most we will pay under 

this Coverage Extension in any one policy period, regardless of the number of 

occurrences, is shown in the Schedule above.

However, we will not pay for direct physical loss or damage to Covered Property 

caused by or resulting from continued or repeated back up or overflow of water 

over a period 14 days.

The most we will pay under this Coverage Extension in any one policy period, 

regardless of the number of occurrences, is shown in the Schedule above. 

ECF No. [8-1] at 97.

The Amendatory Endorsement includes a Schedule of Coverages and Limits, which provides 

that losses from “Sewer, Drain, or Sump Backup or Overflow” are limited to $5,000.00 in 

insurance coverage. ECF No. [8-1] at 85.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Summary Judgment

A court may grant a motion for summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The parties may support their positions by citations to materials in the record, 

Case 1:22-cv-23346-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2023 Page 4 of 12
Case No. 22-cv-23346-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

5

including depositions, documents, affidavits, or declarations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “A factual 

dispute is ‘material’ if it would affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, and 

‘genuine’ if a reasonable trier of fact could return judgment for the non-moving party.” Miccosukee 

Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, 516 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Anderson 

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986)). 

A court views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, draws “all 

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant and may not weigh evidence or make credibility 

determinations[.]’” Lewis v. City of Union City, Ga., 934 F.3d 1169, 1179 (11th Cir. 2019); see 

also Crocker v. Beatty, 886 F.3d 1132, 1134 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[W]e accept [the non-moving 

party’s] version of the facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable 

to him as the non-movant.” (citation omitted)). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in 

support of the [non-moving party’s] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which 

a jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. “If more than 

one inference could be construed from the facts by a reasonable fact finder, and that inference 

introduces a genuine issue of material fact, then the district court should not grant summary 

judgment.” Bannum, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.2d 989, 996 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation 

omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim of breach of contract. The Court 

begins its analysis with the Amendatory Endorsement, as Defendant contends that the plain 

language of this policy demonstrates that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

The Court must apply Florida law to interpret the Amendatory Endorsement, as this is a 

question of contract interpretation under diversity jurisdiction. Canal Indem. Co. v. Margaretville 

Case 1:22-cv-23346-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2023 Page 5 of 12
Case No. 22-cv-23346-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

6

of NSB, Inc., 562 F. App’x 959, 961 (11th Cir. 2014); Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Am. Pride Bldg. 

Co., LLC, 601 F.3d 1143 (11th Cir. 2010). Under Florida law, the interpretation of insurance 

policies is a matter of law reserved for the court. Id. An insurance policy should be given a 

construction that reflects the intent of the parties, id., and policy provisions must be construed in 

accordance with the plain language of the policy. Swire Pacific Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 

845 So. 2d 161, 165 (Fla. 2003). Ambiguous policy exclusions are construed against the drafter 

and in favor of the insured. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So. 2d 29, 34 (Fla. 2000).

Defendant argues that the plain language of the Amendatory Endorsement squarely covers 

Plaintiff’s loss and accordingly limits Plaintiff’s recovery to $5,000.00 per building. ECF No. [27] 

at 4. Defendant argues that since it has already tendered full payment to Plaintiff—Plaintiff’s 

breach of contract claims must fail as a matter of law. Id. 

Plaintiff responds that the Amendatory Endorsement is not dispositive of its breach of 

contract claim because the policy is ambiguous. Plaintiff specifically contends that it is unclear 

whether the Amendatory Endorsement applies to water damage losses regardless of whether they 

originate from on or off the premises. ECF No. [44] at 7. Plaintiff argues that because the 

Amendatory Endorsement does not define the terms “sewer” or “drain,” they must be “interpreted 

by the Court to refer to municipal systems that are off of the property.” Id. Because the parties 

dispute where the damage originated from, Plaintiff argues that this interpretation demonstrates 

that there is a genuine dispute as to whether the Amendatory Endorsement applies. Id. Plaintiff 

asserts that this interpretation is compelled by the decisions in Cheetham v. Southern Oak Ins. Co., 

114 So. 3d 257 (Fla. 3 DCA 2013), and Cameron v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 726 Fed. App’x 757 (11th 

Cir. 2018).

In Cheetham, the parties disputed whether a water damage exclusion applied to plaintiff’s 

Case 1:22-cv-23346-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2023 Page 6 of 12
Case No. 22-cv-23346-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

7

water damage claim and therefore provided a basis for defendant to deny coverage. 114 So. 3d at 

259. The Court interpreted the water damage exclusion as only excluding coverage for water losses 

that originate from off the premises. Id. at 262-63. The Court determined that “exclusions from 

coverage contemplated by paragraphs a., b., and c. of the water damage exclusion relate to damage 

caused by water originating from somewhere other than the residence premises' plumbing system.” 

Id. at 263. The Court interpreted paragraph b. together with paragraphs a. and c. of the water 

damage exclusion and accordingly defined “sewer” and “drain” as “devices that carry water and 

sewage away from the property.” Id. (quoting Old Dominion Ins. Co. v. Elysee, Inc., 601 So. 2d 

1243, 1245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)). 

In Cameron, the court discussed Cheetham’s interpretation of the applicable water damage 

exclusion and applied that interpretation to a similar water damage exclusion. Cameron, 761-62. 

The Court found that, “[b]esides a few minor and inconsequential variations in language,” the two 

water damage exclusion policies were “virtually identical.” Id. at 762. The court accordingly 

adhered to Cheetham’s interpretation of the water damage exclusion and found that “the Water 

Exclusion relates to water damage caused in part by outside forces, such as weather-induced 

flooding, but not to damage caused by a failure of the premises’ plumbing system due to age or 

deterioration.” Id. As in Cheetham, the water exclusion policy in Cameron failed to define the 

terms “sewer” or “drain.” 

Defendant replies that the Amendatory Endorsement is unambiguous, and the decisions in 

Cheetham and Cameron are distinguishable. Moreover, Defendant posits that the decision in 

Chabad of Key Biscayne v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, 631 F. Supp. 3d 1250, (S.D. Fla. 2022), 

aff'd, No. 22-13603, 2023 WL 4399990 (11th Cir. July 7, 2023), supports its interpretation. ECF 

No. [46] at 8-9. In Chabad, the court interpreted an insurance policy’s water exclusion and related 

Case 1:22-cv-23346-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2023 Page 7 of 12
Case No. 22-cv-23346-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

8

“Sewer Coverage Extension” that “allows up to $5,000.00 in coverage for damage ‘otherwise 

discharged’ from a ‘sewer [or] drain.’” Chabad, 631 F. Supp 3d 1250, 1254. The court found that 

“[t]his language is clear and unambiguous.” Chabad, 631 F. Supp 3d 1250, 1254. The court 

rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to rely on Cheetham and Cameron to avoid the $5,000.00 coverage 

limitation, explaining that “[u]nlike the policies in Cheetham and Cameron, the Policy expressly 

defines drain and sewer and includes the Coverage Extension.”3 Id. at 1255. Defendant argues that 

Chabad supports finding that the Amendatory Endorsement is similarly unambiguous and applies 

to Plaintiff’s claim.

The Court begins with the plain language of the Amendatory Endorsement. The 

Amendatory Endorsement provides in relevant part:

Sewer, Drain, or Sump Backup or Overflow.

You may extend the insurance provided by endorsement to include loss, whether 

it originates on or off the described premises, caused by water that backs up or 

overflows or is otherwise discharged from a sewer, drain, sump or sump pump 

or related equipment.

ECF No. [8-1] at 97. 

It is undisputed that the damage caused to both Properties “by backup from the property’s 

plumbing system” is a covered loss under the Policy. Id. ¶ 14; SAMF ¶ 14. The parties instead 

dispute whether the Amendatory Endorsement and its $5,000.00 coverage limit applies to 

Plaintiff’s claim regardless of where the water damage originated. The Court analyzes whether the 

plain language of the Amendatory Endorsement applies regardless of where the water damage 

originated, or whether the Amendatory Endorsement is ambiguous.

3 The Eleventh Circuit cited Purdy Lane, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. for support, which similarly 

found that “[t]he addition of the definitions of ‘drain’ and ‘sewer’—and specifically, the language ‘on or 

away from the premises’—to the Water Exclusion is significant and serves to expand its scope, not keep it 

consistent with Cameron and Cheetham’s interpretations or narrow it.” No. 20-80966-CIV, 2021 WL 

1053283 at * 6 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2021) (quoting John Raffell v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., Case no. 20-21719-

CIV-ALTONAGA (Jan. 8, 2021)).

Case 1:22-cv-23346-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2023 Page 8 of 12
Case No. 22-cv-23346-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

9

As in Chabad, the Amendatory Endorsement is clear and unambiguous, albeit for slightly 

different reasons. The Amendatory Endorsement provides coverage when a loss “originates on or 

off the described premises, [and is] caused by water that backs up or overflows or is otherwise 

discharged from a sewer, drain, sump or sump pump or related equipment.” ECF No. [8-1] at 101 

(emphasis added). The Court agrees that, like in Chabad and Purdy, the fact that the Amendatory 

Endorsement explicitly applies regardless of whether the water damage “originates on or off the 

described premises” is “significant and serves to expand its scope” compared to the water 

exclusion policies in Cheetham and Cameron that lacked this language. Chabad, 631 F. Supp. at 

1255 n.4; Purdy Lane, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2021 WL 1053283 at *6. Instead of expanding the 

scope of the Policy by defining the terms “sewer” and “drain,” the Amendatory Endorsement

makes clear that losses “caused by water that backs up or overflows or is otherwise discharged 

from a sewer, drain, sump or sump pump or related equipment” are covered and subject to the 

$5,000.00 limitation “whether it originates on or off the described premises.” ECF No. [8-1] at 97. 

The fact that the terms “sewer,” “drain,” “sump or sump pump or related equipment” are undefined 

does not create ambiguity, as the policy makes clear that it encompasses losses caused from any 

of those devices regardless of where they originate from. The Amendatory Endorsement therefore 

unambiguously applies regardless of where the backup from the Properties’ plumbing system

originated from.

Plaintiff argues that the decisions in Cheetham v. Southern Oak Ins. Co., and Cameron v. 

Scottsdale Ins. Co. stand for the proposition that when the terms “sewer” or “drain” are undefined 

in the insurance policy in question, those terms must be interpreted as referring to “water that is 

coming off of the property.” ECF No. [44] at 6. Plaintiff contends that this interpretation means 

that the Amendatory Endorsement only applies to backups originating from “off of the property” 

Case 1:22-cv-23346-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2023 Page 9 of 12
Case No. 22-cv-23346-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

10

and, because whether the backup originated from on or off the Properties is disputed, Defendant 

is accordingly not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. The Court disagrees. Despite 

Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, Cheetham and Cameron do not support a finding that the 

scope of the Amendatory Endorsement is ambiguous. 

As discussed, in both cases, the courts interpreted water damage exclusions that were silent 

as to whether coverage extended to water damage losses regardless of whether they originated on 

or off the premises. Cheetham, 114 So. 3d at 260-63; Cameron, 726 F. App’x at 760-61. Both 

policies excluded coverage for losses caused by water backups through sewers, drains, sump, sump 

pump or related equipment but did not specify whether the exclusion applied regardless of where 

the loss originated from. Cheetham, 114 So. 3d at 262; Cameron, 726 F. App’x 760-61. In 

Cheetham, the court found that the other two paragraphs of the water damage exclusion referred 

to water damage caused by forces originating off the premises. Cheetham, 114 So. 3d at 262. This 

finding led the court to define the terms “sewer” and “drain” as these terms are commonly 

understood, namely, as “devices which carry water and sewage away from property.” Cheetham,

114 So. 3d at 263-64 (quoting Old Dominion Ins. Co. v. Elysee, Inc., 601 So. 2d 1243, 1245-46 

(Fla. 3 DCA 2013)). The Cameron Court followed Cheetham’s interpretation after determining 

that the water damage exclusion at issue was “virtually identical to the coverage provision in 

Cheetham.”4 Cameron, 726 F. App’x at 761-62. Both courts accordingly concluded that the water 

4 The court specifically noted that “Paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of the Water Exclusion, like paragraphs 

a. and c. of the water damage exclusion in Cheetham, relate to water damage ‘caused by outside forces 

unrelated to the residence premises’ plumbing system,’ such as weather-induced flooding ... Reading the 

provisions of the Water Exclusion together, therefore, we conclude that Paragraph 3 of the Water Exclusion, 

like paragraph b. of the water-damage exclusion in Cheetham, ‘pertains to damage caused by water not 

originating from the residence premises’ plumbing system even though the water or water-borne material 

eventually backs up through a pipe and/or drain within the plumbing system of the residence premises.”

Cameron, 726 F. App’x at 762 (quoting Cheetham, 114 So. 3d at 262-63).

Case 1:22-cv-23346-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2023 Page 10 of 12
Case No. 22-cv-23346-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

11

damage exclusions only excluded coverage of water losses that originate from off the premises.

Cheetham and Cameron are readily distinguishable because the plain language of the 

Amendatory Endorsement applies to water damage losses regardless of where they originate from.

Like the policies in Chabad and Purdy, the Amendatory Endorsement explicitly applies regardless 

of whether the loss “originates on or off the described premises,” thereby significantly expanding 

its scope. And unlike the water damage exclusions in Cheetham and Cameron, the Amendatory 

Endorsement lacks any language limiting its scope to losses that occur off the premises. The fact 

that the Amendatory Endorsement leaves the terms “sewer” and “drain” undefined fails to create 

ambiguity as to the scope of the policy, as the Amendatory Endorsement makes clear that losses 

caused by any device—be it a sewer, drain, sump or sump pump, or related equipment—are 

covered regardless of where they originate from. The Court accordingly finds that the Amendatory 

Endorsement is unambiguous and covers the disputed loss. 

“When the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon [of statutory 

interpretation] is also the last: judicial inquiry is complete.” CBS Inc. v. PrimeTime 24 Joint 

Venture, 245 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 

1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (alteration in original)).

Defendant has shown that the Amendatory Endorsement unambiguously covers Plaintiff’s 

loss in its entirety, and there is no genuine dispute as to whether Plaintiff’s loss is covered or 

whether Defendant has performed under the Policy. The Court therefore concludes that Defendant 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 

IV.CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, ECF No. [27], is GRANTED. The Court will issue its final judgment in a separate 

Case 1:22-cv-23346-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2023 Page 11 of 12
Case No. 22-cv-23346-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

12

order. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on October 9, 2023.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-23346-BB Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2023 Page 12 of 12