Case Name: FLORIDA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. J. Timothy BIRGE and Margaret Birge, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-12-28
Citations: 659 So. 2d 310
Docket Number: No. 93-03737
Parties: FLORIDA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. J. Timothy BIRGE and Margaret Birge, Appellees.
Judges: BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 659
Pages: 310–316

Head Matter:
FLORIDA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. J. Timothy BIRGE and Margaret Birge, Appellees.
No. 93-03737.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Dec. 28, 1994.
George A. Vaka of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
C. Kenneth Stuart, Jr., Lakeland, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company appeals a $100,000 final judgment entered in favor of the Birges. We affirm because we agree the homeowners' insurance contract did not unambiguously exclude from cover age damage to the Birges' home caused by a sewer malfunction.
On July 11, 1991, J. Timothy and Margaret Birge returned home, opened the front door, and were met by raw sewage filling their house and flowing out the doorway. The Birges filed an insurance claim for the damage. Farm Bureau denied coverage based on two provisions in the insurance contract that excluded damage resulting from "water" or from "pollutants and contaminants."
The trial judge found the insurance contract was ambiguous and allowed the jury to determine the damages. If the language of an insurance contract is ambiguous, the policy must be construed in favor of the insured. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pridgen, 498 So.2d 1245 (Fla.1986); Hartnett v. Southern Ins. Co., 181 So.2d 524 (Fla. 1965); Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lamarche, 371 So.2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), approved, 390 So.2d 325 (Fla.1980). Exclusionary clauses are construed more strictly than coverage clauses. Triano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 565 So.2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
We agree with the trial judge that the policy was ambiguous. The average homeowner's examination of the insurance contract would not reveal the applicability of these exclusions to this type of disaster. Our conclusion is supported by the availability of clear and unambiguous language that the insurance company could have used to exclude damage resulting from a backup of raw sewage.
Accordingly, we affirm.
BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
PARKER, A.C.J., dissents with opinion.