Plaintiff Zulfigar Ahmed suffered a property damage loss at his owner-occupied two-story residential apartment house in Paterson due to a high wind rainstorm. At that time, a tree limb and branches fell onto plaintiff’s home, damaging its roof, vinyl siding, concrete masonry wall, a window and other property. The issue in Ahmed v. American Security Insurance Co., 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 852 (App. Div. May 13, 2024) was whether the plaintiff had submitted sufficient proofs of his property damage from this rainstorm to survive a motion for a summary judgment dismissal.
Plaintiff’s home was insured with American Security Insurance Company under a hazard insurance policy. The policy provided liability coverage for the dwelling.
After the rainstorm, plaintiff submitted an insurance claim, specifically claiming that rainwater leaked from the damaged roof and window to lower levels of the house causing water damage to the basement. Defendant’s adjuster inspected the exterior of the property, taking limited pictures. Plaintiff submitted damages in the form of an itemized invoice from Ortiz Construction in the amount of $34,246.00 for the repairs performed. The defendant insurance company advised plaintiff it was preserving a full reservation of rights pending full access to the property for a complete inspection. Subsequently, plaintiff submitted a request for payment for an exterior gutter, house trimming, a door, a step railing, the roof, and vinyl siding. Plaintiff resubmitted the paid Ortiz Construction invoice and requested a payment of same.
A dispute arose as to the extent of the damage caused by this storm. The defendant insurance company disputed causation for some of the plaintiff’s alleged property damage, attributing necessary repairs to prior insurance claims. In the prior year, plaintiff had settled five property damage claims with defendant.
In December 2020, defendant notified plaintiff’s counsel that the claim adjustment was completed and sent a check in the amount of $8,703.00 to cover the damage it claims was caused by the rainstorm. While the plaintiff’s counsel received the check, allegedly, it was returned as inadequate. The plaintiff maintained that the total tree damage loss to his house and car was approximately $440,000.00.
This dispute ended up in a lawsuit in which plaintiff sued the insurance company for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, declaratory judgment, specific performance, unjust enrichment, and bad faith. Then it produced an expert report by a forensic engineer who opined that most of the interior damage was unrelated to the tree impact and was related to prior claims. While the report acknowledged the exterior damage, the expert opined that there was “historical and overlapping damage.” Plaintiff, in rebuttal, produced multiple receipts, including additional paid invoices from Ortiz Construction and MK Construction.
At the conclusion of discovery, the defendant moved for a summary judgment dismissal. The trial court judge granted the motion, finding that all of the damage was not causally related to the tree damage. Plaintiff appealed this ruling.
The Appellate Division reversed. It found that summary judgment should not have been granted because there were issues of fact which precluded a dismissal though a summary judgment proceeding. The Court found that the trial court judge failed to address plaintiff’s Ortiz Construction invoices which showed payment for the repair work.
The Appellate Division found that “the construction company invoices sufficiently demonstrated a prima facie showing of disputed facts regarding property damage causally related to the fallen tree limb precluding summary judgment.” The Court expressed no opinion as to whether plaintiff’s proffered contractors should be qualified as experts, but it concluded that plaintiff made a sufficient prima facie showing as to at least some of the damages alleged. Thus, the Appellate Division reversed and remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings.
