United Kingdom Underwriters Sue Florida Boat Owner Seeking Declaratory Judgment Over Vessel Flooding and Hull Coverage Denial

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London Subscribing to Contract No. B0750RMAMY2411305, a marine insurance entity organized under the laws of the United Kingdom, has filed a maritime lawsuit against Florida resident Roberto Lazaro Benitez. The action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Case No. 1:26-cv-23932-JEM, seeks a declaratory judgment to validate the denial of an insurance claim after a luxury sportfishing vessel partially sank at its slip.

Marine Insurance Company Seeks Court Declaration to Deny Coverage for Partially Sunken Riviera Sportfish in Miami

The dispute arises from a maritime incident that occurred on or about December 2, 2025, involving a 2003 48-foot Riviera Sportfish vessel named Wetdream. According to the complaint, the vessel owner noticed the boat sitting lower than normal in the water while it was docked at Bayside Marina in Miami, Florida. Upon investigating the situation, the owner discovered that the engine room was partially flooded. A salvage company was immediately called to the scene to locate the origin of the water ingress and to dewater the flooded engine room. The source of the water intrusion was eventually traced to a 110 VAC air conditioning pump, which the owner removed and replaced before any further formal inspection of the vessel could take place. The vessel owner subsequently submitted a formal hull insurance claim under marine insurance Policy No. SWY000363-02, which provided 345,000 dollars in hull coverage subject to a 17,250 dollar deductible.

Post-Loss Inspection Reveals Severe Pump Corrosion and Wear and Tear as Cause of Engine Room Flooding

Following the submission of the marine insurance claim, the underwriters initiated an investigation into the cause of the loss. On December 4, 2025, marine surveyors from Harbor & Ocean Services Inc. conducted an initial post-loss inspection of the vessel and noted that the original air conditioning pump had already been removed and replaced. The original equipment was identified as a US Motors commercial duty pump. Upon inspecting the removed pump, surveyors discovered that the housing wall thickness had severely eroded over time, resulting in a hole measuring 0.52 inches by 0.25 inches. The internal impeller, outer case, and the opening were all found to be heavily eroded and pitted from prolonged exposure to salt water. The initial post-loss report concluded that the pump had corroded progressively over a long period until the wall finally collapsed, creating an opening that allowed seawater to continuously flood into the engine space. Based on these factual findings, the insurance underwriters issued a formal declination of coverage letter on December 10, 2025, citing policy exclusions for wear and tear and gradual deterioration.

Boat Owner Asserts Plastic Bag Blockage Caused Marine System Failure and Overheating in Coverage Dispute

The vessel owner disputed the initial insurance denial and submitted a formal demand through a representative on March 3, 2026, requesting that the underwriters reopen and reconsider the claim. In this demand, the owner presented an alternative theory of liability, asserting that a plastic bag had become lodged inside the raw-water intake of the air conditioning system. The owner argued that this plastic obstruction blocked the flow of cooling water, causing the marine system to overheat and leading to a sudden failure of the internal seals, which triggered the rapid influx of water. Additionally, the demand contended that the corroded pump was not connected to the vessel at the time of the partial sinking, claiming it had been removed prior to the incident. The representative stated that air conditioning technicians would testify that the pump was removed before the flooding occurred.

Second Survey Involving Engineers and Technicians Refutes Alternative Plastic Bag Blockage Theory

To address the assertions made in the owner’s formal demand, the underwriters scheduled a second inspection of the vessel on May 11, 2026. This joint survey was attended by counsel for the underwriters, an engineer from SEA Ltd., the original surveyor from Harbor & Ocean Services Inc., the public adjuster representing the vessel owner, and the air conditioning technicians. During this inspection, the attending air conditioning technician informed the parties that he had performed work on the vessel months prior to the incident on September 5, 2025. At that time, he did find a plastic bag stuck in the air conditioning system and removed it. However, the technician clarified that he was present during the first survey on December 4, 2025, and that the original pump was still present at that time, and he only purchased and installed the new pump during that first inspection after the flooding had already occurred. The technician confirmed that the plastic bag incident occurred months beforehand and that there was no evidence of a second plastic bag causing an sudden failure on the day of the partial sinking.

Underwriters Cite Eleventh Circuit Precedent Excluding Marine Insurance Coverage for Wear and Tear and Deterioration

In the single-count complaint for declaratory relief, the plaintiff underwriters argue that coverage is completely barred by Exclusion C of the marine insurance policy, which explicitly excludes losses or damages caused directly or indirectly by wear and tear, gradual deterioration, or corrosion. The underwriters contend that the true cause of the loss was the severe, long-term corrosion of the pump housing, which deteriorated the fitting over time and allowed water to enter the vessel. To support their legal position, the underwriters cite Eleventh Circuit judicial precedent, specifically referencing the case of Miele v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, where the federal appellate court held that a wear and tear exclusion precluded coverage for a vessel sinking caused by a failed air conditioning hose fitting. The lawsuit requests that the federal court enter a judgment declaring that the loss resulted from excluded wear and tear and corrosion, thereby releasing the underwriters from any obligation to pay the hull insurance claim.

Contact an Experienced Maritime and Marine Insurance Lawyer Today to Protect Your Rights After a Vessel Loss

Marine insurance policies contain complex exclusions regarding wear and tear, mechanical breakdown, and gradual deterioration that can severely impact a vessel owner’s ability to recover after a sinking or flooding incident. Insurance companies frequently utilize independent engineers and forensic surveyors to investigate claims and identify pre-existing conditions or maintenance issues that might justify a coverage denial. If you own a vessel and are facing an insurance coverage dispute, a denial of hull coverage, or a federal declaratory judgment action brought by marine underwriters, it is vital to secure professional legal representation. Our team of skilled maritime attorneys understands navigation laws, marine policy interpretations, and the technical aspects of vessel machinery failures. We are prepared to review your claim, analyze surveyor reports, and help you navigate complex maritime litigation.

Contact us now to speak with a dedicated marine insurance and maritime litigation attorney about your case.

Disclaimer: Our firm does not represent the plaintiff in this case and is not involved in the litigation. The information provided is a summary of allegations based on publicly available court filings. We make no representations about the truth of these allegations, are not commenting on the merits of the case, and are not predicting any outcome.