Background
Andre Chow’s home sustained two separate water losses in October 2017: a shower pan leak in the master bathroom on October 7th and an angle valve leak in the kitchen on October 16th. Chow hired Dri Force Restoration to perform emergency mitigation and restoration services for both claims. The work was completed by October 11th for the bathroom claim and October 20th for the kitchen claim.
Dri Force submitted itemized invoices totaling $6,454.41 for the bathroom claim and $10,973.66 for the kitchen claim. Both invoices included a $134.46 charge for debris hauling and dump fees. The insurance policy provided two relevant coverages: a Debris Removal provision and a Reasonable Emergency Measures provision capped at $3,000 per claim (or 1% of Coverage A). Dri Force did not request advance approval to exceed the $3,000 limit. Citizens paid $3,000 for each claim and denied the remaining amounts, contending the debris removal was included in the emergency measures payment and fell within the $3,000 cap.
Dri Force sued for breach of contract in 2018, arguing that debris removal services constitute a separate coverage category not subject to the $3,000 emergency measures limit. The trial court granted Citizens’ motion for summary judgment in 2024, finding that debris removal services performed as part of water mitigation work fall within the emergency measures provision. Dri Force appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed the trial court, holding that debris removal services performed in conjunction with water mitigation and restoration fall under the Reasonable Emergency Measures coverage, not the separate Debris Removal provision. The court adopted the reasoning from Certified Priority Restoration v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp. (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), which established that removal of damaged materials during restoration work is part of the mitigation service itself, not a distinct “debris removal” service under a separate policy section.
The court emphasized that Dri Force was hired to provide “restoration services” and “emergency mitigation,” not standalone debris removal work. The invoices submitted contained debris charges only as line items within emergency measures services, not as separate billings. Additionally, Citizens presented expert testimony establishing that debris disposal is an inherent and inseparable part of emergency water mitigation services and is included in the charge for those services. Because debris removal was incidental to and part of the performance of emergency measures, it did not qualify as a separate coverage category.
Key Takeaways
- Debris removal performed as part of water mitigation services is not a separate billable item under a policy’s debris removal provision; it falls within emergency measures coverage.
- The classification of services depends on the contractor’s primary engagement: if hired for mitigation and restoration, incidental debris removal is part of that service, not a distinct service.
- Contractors cannot circumvent coverage limits by attempting to reclassify charges that were included in invoices for mitigation as falling under a different policy provision.
- Insurance policies are interpreted according to their plain language; when language is clear and unambiguous, courts apply the contract as written without expanding coverage beyond its terms.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces established law that debris removal incidental to restoration and mitigation work does not trigger separate coverage provisions. For insurers, it protects against claims strategies that attempt to split single integrated services into multiple policy categories to avoid coverage limits. For restoration contractors, it clarifies that work performed under emergency mitigation contracts—including debris hauling—is compensable only under the emergency measures provision and its stated limits, and cannot be separately billed under a debris removal section.
The ruling has practical significance in the frequent scenario of water damage claims, where restoration necessarily involves removing damaged materials. By tying the applicable coverage to the nature of the work actually performed rather than allowing contractors to categorize the same work under multiple provisions, the court provides insurers and policyholders with predictable application of contract terms and prevents coverage disputes over how to label integrated services.