Hegel v. The First Liberty Insurance Corp.

778 F.3d 1214 (2015)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Hegel v. The First Liberty Insurance Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
778 F.3d 1214 (2015)

Facts

The Hegels (plaintiffs) had purchased homeowner’s insurance from The First Liberty Insurance Corp. (defendant) that insured against sinkhole losses. In the policy, a sinkhole loss was defined as “structural damage to the building, including the foundation, caused by sinkhole activity.” The policy did not define structural damage. The Hegels later discovered damages to the walls and floors of their residence and submitted a claim to Liberty. Liberty determined that the damage was from normal concrete shrinkage, settling, and foundation issues that did not qualify as structural damage and denied the claim. The Hegels then hired a public adjuster who determined that sinkhole activity was one of several causes of the damage. The public adjuster defined structural damage as “damage which impedes the structural components from supporting the loads they are intended to support.” The Hegels then hired a testing laboratory that also determined that sinkhole activity and other factors had combined to cause the damage. The Hegels then got a bid of approximately $146,000 to repair their foundation and a bid of approximately $20,000 to repair cosmetic damage. The Hegels sued Liberty. Although both parties agreed that the term structural damage was unambiguous and should be given its plain meaning, the parties did not agree on what that meaning was. The trial court decided that structural damage meant any physical damage to the Hegels’ home (i.e., to their structure) and awarded them the full $166,000 from the bids. Liberty appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Gilman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership