PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Damage/Loss / Alabama Federal Court Finds No Duty to Defend Lawsuit Alleging Concealment of Defects in Sale of Home

Alabama Federal Court Finds No Duty to Defend Lawsuit Alleging Concealment of Defects in Sale of Home

September 8, 2023 by Andrew Daechsel

In Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Carmichael, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, applying Alabama law, entered summary judgment ruling that Nationwide Fire Insurance Co. had no duty to defend a home seller under a homeowners policy for an underlying lawsuit alleging that the seller failed to disclose defects in his home when selling it.

The underlying lawsuit was filed by the purchasers of the home. The purchasers asserted a claim for suppression against the seller. They alleged that the seller knew or should have known the house “suffered from moisture, termites, conditions suitable for termites, structural issues or concerns, and/or concerns or issues affecting health or safety” and “failed to disclose any such defect.” The purchasers sought to recover damages for emotional distress and property damage.

The seller sought a defense from Nationwide under his homeowners insurance policy that was in effect when he sold his home. Nationwide provided a defense but then filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend.

The policy stated that Nationwide would provide a defense for a lawsuit “against an ‘insured’ for damages due to an ‘occurrence’ resulting from negligent personal acts or negligence arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of real or personal property.” The policy defined an “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions, which results, during the policy period, in” either “bodily injury” or “property damage.”

The court ruled that the underlying lawsuit did not allege any “bodily injury,” which the policy defined as “bodily harm, sickness or disease, including required care, loss of services and death that results” but not “emotional distress, mental anguish, humiliation, mental distress or injury, or any similar injury unless the direct result of bodily harm.” Because the underlying lawsuit alleged only emotional distress, not any physical injury to the purchasers, the court ruled that the underlying lawsuit did not allege “bodily injury.”

The court also ruled that the underlying lawsuit did not allege any “property damage” that would trigger a duty to defend. The policy defined “property damage” as “physical injury to, destruction of, or loss of use of tangible property.” The parties did not dispute that the underlying lawsuit alleged “property damage” within the scope of this definition. However, the court ruled that any alleged “property damage” needed to be “due to” an “occurrence” to trigger coverage. The court ruled that the property damage in the underlying lawsuit was not “due to” the seller’s alleged misrepresentations and, therefore, did not trigger the duty to defend.

Notwithstanding the lack of allegations of “bodily injury” or “property damage” needed to trigger the duty to defend, the seller argued that the court could not make a determination of Nationwide’s duty to defend because “the facts that determine liability here are still to be determined” in the underlying lawsuit. The court rejected this argument, indicating that, under Alabama law, in determining the duty to defend, it could look beyond the allegations in the underlying complaint and consider facts that may be proved by admissible evidence. However, the court noted that the seller had pointed to no admissible evidence that would trigger the duty to defend. Accordingly, the court determined there was no duty to defend and entered summary judgment in favor of Nationwide.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Cause and Effect: Southern District of Florida Determines Parkland Shooting Constituted One Occurrence

Next Article »

Fifth Circuit Holds No Uninsured Motorist Coverage for Lyft Driver Following Crash

About Andrew Daechsel

Andrew Daechsel is an associate at Carlton Fields in West Palm Beach, Florida. Connect with Andrew on LinkedIn.

Related Articles

  1. Second Circuit Holds “Offering for Sale” Is “Advertising Injury” Under CGL Policy, But Allegation Not Enough to Trigger Duty to Defend
  2. Gluing Feathers to a Phone Does Not Make a Turkey: Seventh Circuit Finds Mere “Negligence” Label and “Stitched Together” Factual Allegations Do Not Trigger Duty to Defend Aggressive Robocall Lawsuit Under Illinois Law
  3. New York Federal Judge Finds No Duty to Defend Based on War Exclusion’s Insurrection Clause
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Connecticut Federal Court Construes Ambiguous Policy Exclusion in Favor of Coverage, but Rejects Bad Faith Claim
  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing