• Atlanta
• Boston
• Dallas
• Ft. Lauderdale
• London
• Minneapolis
• New York
• Oakland
• Philadelphia
• Washington, DC

by Kiri Deonarine

Let’s say a carrier insures a property for a number of years. During that time, multiple events occur that could damage the property. The insured waits, however, to make a claim. A claim is eventually made but it is not clear the event occurred during the policy period claimed. In H5R, L.L.C. v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., No. 25-10533, 2026 WL 252653, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2026), the Fifth Circuit determined that if the insured does not present evidence that an event occurred during the policy period alleged in the complaint, then the carrier is entitled to summary judgment.

In H5R, the insured owned the property at issue since 2016, and Scottsdale insured the risk from 2018 through 2021 through annual renewal policies. When the parties disagreed on coverage and suit was filed, the insured’s complaint referenced only the policy period beginning in December 2020. That policy covered “direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property . . . caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss.” “Covered Causes of Loss” included:

4. Windstorm or Hail, but not including

1. 1. Frost or cold weather;
   2. Ice (other than hail), snow or sleet, whether driven by wind or not;
   3. Loss or damage to the interior to any building or structure . . . caused by rain, snow, sand or dust, whether driven by wind or not, unless the building or structure first sustains wind or hail damage to its roof or walls through which the rain, snow, sand or dust enters, or;
   4. Loss or damage by hail to lawns, trees, shrubs or plants which are part of a vegetated roof.

The policy also excluded “[r]upture or bursting of water pipes . . . unless caused by a Covered Cause of Loss” and “[l]leakage or discharge of water or steam from any part of a system or appliance containing water or steam . . . unless the leakage or discharge occurs because the system or appliance was damaged by a Covered Cause of Loss.” The policy covered only loss “commencing . . . [d]uring the policy period.”

In April 2021, the insured submitted a claim to Scottsdale for “[s]now and ice caus[ing] water to leak from roof, wall, floor through property, pipe burst underneath kitchen sink” that allegedly occurred on February 15, 2021. Scottsdale investigated the loss and found hail damage to the roof tiles occurred before February 2021. Ultimately, Scottsdale denied the claim.

The insured disagreed with Scottsdale’s coverage position and filed a lawsuit claiming breach of contract, bad faith, late payment and deceptive insurance practices pursuant to Chapters 541 and 542 of the Texas Insurance Code.

Scottsdale’s expert concluded that the holes in the property’s roof were most consistent with hail impacts that occurred in 2011. Scottsdale’s expert relied on a hail report showing that hail fell at the location in May 2011, April 2012, and March 2019 – all before the December 2020 policy period.

The insured objected to Scottsdale’s expert and argued that its own witness should have been admitted for expert testimony regarding hail damage. The Fifth Circuit rejected both arguments. The court held that any alleged error regarding Scottsdale’s expert was harmless because the insured failed to show prejudice. The court also affirmed the exclusion of the insured’s witness, who had not been designated as an expert witness regarding whether or when hail damage occurred and testified that the hail damage at the property could have occurred in 2011.

The insured further argued that because it renewed its policy from 2018 to 2021, the policy period to be considered in the lawsuit should encompass all those years. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, explaining that each renewal policy is a separate and distinct contract. Because the complaint referenced only the December 2020 policy—and the insured did not amend to assert breaches of earlier policies—the court confined its analysis to that policy period.

Critically, the insured presented no evidence that hail occurred during the December 2020-2021 policy period. Without such evidence, there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether covered damage occurred. The court therefore affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Scottsdale. Furthermore, because the remaining claims were predicated on the success of the breach of contract claim, those claims failed as well.

H5R highlights the importance of focusing on the policy period actually alleged in the complaint and is a good reminder that renewal history alone does not expand the coverage period at issue.

_________________________________

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.