Lloyd’s of London insurers do not have to pay a hail damage claim to a hotel owner operating a Hilton brand property because of uncertainty as to when the damage occurred, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

Lowen Valley View L.L.C. and Panade II Ltd., which own and operate a Hilton Garden Inn in Irving, Texas, had a commercial general liability policy with Lloyd’s syndicates from June 2, 2012, to June 2, 2013, according to the ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London et al. v. Lowe Valley View, L.L.C.; Panade II, Limited, doing business as Hilton Garden Inn.

Lowen Valley notified Lloyd’s in December 2014 that the hotel roof had suffered hail damage, according to the ruling.  An adjuster determined the roof would need to be replaced and estimated total repair cost of $429,225, according to the ruling.

Lloyd’s commissioned an engineering firm to prepare a report, which would become the first of three, analyzing the claim

The first report said the most recent hailstorm with hailstones large enough to cause damage was on June 13, 2012, which was after the policy period.  A second report said the damage most likely occurred on June 13, 2012.

Lloyd’s subsequently denied the claim and filed suit in U.S. District Court in Dallas seeking a declaratory judgment it was not obligated to provide coverage.

The engineering firm then said in a third report that “it is unlikely that hail only fell at this one location one time.”

The U.S. District Court granted Lloyd’s summary judgment, which was affirmed by a unanimous three-judge panel. “The summary judgement evidence reveals that several hail storms struck the victim of the hotel in the several years preceding Lowen Valley’s claim,” said the ruling.

“Only one of three storms fell within the coverage period.  The district court held that Lloyd’s was entitled to summary judgment because the record lacked reliable evidence permitting a jury to determine which of these storms – alone or in combination – damaged the hotel.  We agree,” said the ruling, in affirming the lower court’s decision.