Can I please get some feedback on my trial brief?

The plaintiff Ms. Lear is seeking reimbursement for damages her property sustained in Little Rock, Arkansas for the past five years. Ms. Lear's property had sustained the floor in the master bathroom floor appeared spongy and sinking. Ms. Lear had seeked assistance from the local flooring contractor in which they stated there was nothing wrong with the floor. After Ms. Lear contacted the plumber, she had confirmed there was a water leakage underneath the floor. Mr. Bore attorney for the Ms. Shaunda Lear and Howe, Laff and Borem submit motion summary judgement to Arkansas Civil Court.

The evidence shows Insure All is liable for covering the cost for Ms. Shaunda Lear. The premise is to prove to the court that Insure All should reimburse Ms. Lear for the expenses which were related to the underground plumbing leak in the related to the underground leakage in the bathroom floor.

Background

Ms. Shaunda Lear owns a property located in Little Rock, Arkansas for approximately five years. In six months, Ms. Lear had noticed the floor was spongy as well as sinking. Ms. Lear had asked the contractor to evaluate the floor.

The contractor found no issues with the floor and suggested she contact the plumber as spongy feeling could be due to a water leak under the flooring. Ms. Lear contacted a local plumber who, conducted an inspection of the floor, confirmed that there is a water leak under the floor.

Later, Ms. Lear filed a claim with her homeowner's insurance company, The Insure-all Corporation.

Insure-all is headquartered in Dover, Delaware, they provide coverage for homeowners

nationwide. However, Insure-all denied Ms. Lear's claim because of an engineering report stating that Ms. Lear's home and in the subdivision were built on fill dirt. Building on or over fill dirt is a named exclusion in Ms. Lear's policy.

A letter was written to in sure All providing evidence to In Sure all they are liable to cover the costs of Ms. Lear's expenses. On August 1^st, a demand letter was sent to Insure all to cover the expenses for Ms. Lear however despite our firms' efforts Insure all had denied our demand letter and were not convinced to compensate Ms. Lear in her expenses.

The Applicable Law

The legal basis for Ms. Lear's claim against Insure-all is a provision in the Arkansas Homeowners Insurance Act. The Act requires insurance companies to pay for "sudden and accidental" damage to a home, up to the policy limits.

In this case, the issue is whether the damage caused by the plumbing leak is considered "sudden and accidental." If the court finds that the damage was sudden and accidental, then Insure-all will be liable for the damages. However, if the court finds that the damage was not sudden and accidental, then Insure-all will not be liable.

The Analysis

The court will likely find that the damage caused by the plumbing leak was sudden and accidental. The court will likely look to the definition of "sudden and accidental" in the Arkansas Homeowners Insurance Act. The Act defines "sudden and accidental" as "damage that is not reasonably expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured."

In this case, the plumbing leak was not reasonably expected or intended from Ms. Lear's standpoint. Ms. Lear did not anything to cause the leak, and she could not have reasonably expected the leak to occur. Therefore, the court is likely to find that the damage was sudden and accidental and Insure-all should be liable for the damages.