Although the carpets, wallpaper, woodwork and other items were not damaged in a water leak event, the insured claimed the cost of replacing them to achieve “aesthetic uniformity” with other components of the building repaired or replaced by the insurers. A Florida court held that the amounts were not claimable from the insurers because they did not sustain direct physical loss or damage.
The policy only provided coverage for “direct physical loss”. It specifically excluded cover for consequential loss and made no mention of matching or aesthetic uniformity. The court said the decision would have been different if the undamaged items were part of a continuous run of an item or an adjoining area of, for instance, carpets or wallpaper.