The complaint also says that the structural damage to the building led to further damage to the interior, which further disrupted the business, and all could have been avoided if AmGuard had properly handled their claim.
The Defendant’s Anticipated Defense
Although AmGuard has not yet responded to the suit, counsel for La Place has anticipated its defensive posture by asserting in its complaint that AmGuard was given full access to its property and that AmGuard had “ample opportunity” to view any alleged “preexisting deterioration” before it issued its policy, and no such conditions were ever previously mentioned or documented.
Notwithstanding the plaintiff’s insistence that there was no preexisting water damage before the storm, AmGuard nonetheless rejected the store’s claim, instead concluding that the damage was the result of deterioration, and not hurricane Ida.
La Place argues in large part that AmGuard’s actions were motivated and rooted in bad faith, and any defenses made to the contrary should be rejected.
