The Tribune

By Neil Hartnell

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A print shop owner’s bid to obtain $266,000 in damages against a Bahamian insurer for failing to pay-out and cover losses associated with Hurricane Irma’s passage in September 2017 has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Justice Loren Klein, in a December 11, 2025, verdict rejected the claim by Ronald Deveaux, proprietor of Bahamas Rubber Stamp Printing, for breach of contract and negligence against Security & General Insurance Company by finding that what caused rainfall from the storm to enter his business was an “excepted peril” or excluded under the terms of the insurance policy.

Mr Deveaux had alleged that the water intrusion resulted from unknown persons trying to break into his business through the roof between Friday, September 8, 2017, and the following day, which created a hole that allowed Irma’s rainfall to enter and damage both his machinery and stock. He argued that the hole was the key cause, but Justice Klein sided with the property and casualty underwriter’s argument that it was the rain.

As a result, the judge found that Mr Deveaux’s damage and losses were excluded from the insurance policy’s coverage by its clause eight, which stipulated Security & General would only make a payout if the rain/water intrusion stemmed directly from hurricane or storm damage to the property - not a break-in. Justice Klein noted that the print shop owner had described the storm as “just a pass over” which did not directly hit The Bahamas.

The judge also asserted that Mr Deveaux was not “a credible witness”, describing him as “evasive and argumentative” when giving evidence during the trial and giving answers over the amount of water he found in the building; the size of the hole in the roof; and what caused the damage to the roof as “wholly inconsistent” with his written submissions and pleadings.

Justice Klein, noting Mr Deveaux’s admission that the machines and equipment were more than 20 years’ old, said he preferred evidence given by Laurie Johnson, a loss adjuster with Technical Adjusters Bahamas and who inspected the purported damage, that some of it at least was “not fresh” - indicating not all of it was due to the purported water intrusion.

And, describing the roof damage and purported break-in as “rather mysterious circumstances”, with nothing stolen or taken from Bahamas Rubber Stamp Printing, Justice Klein wrote that it “seems strange” that Mr Deveaux admitted that 2017 represented the first time he obtained insurance for a business he had operated for 38 years.

And the policy was taken out just four-five days before the incident that sparked the claim on September 4, 2017. “It is alleged that at some point over the period Friday 8 to Saturday September 9, 2017, burglars attempted to gain access to the building through the roof by prying open the plywood,” Justice Klein wrote.

“As fate would have it, Hurricane Irma passed just west of The Bahamas that weekend. While it did not have any significant wind impacts, it is thought to have brought a significant amount of rain. The plaintiff [Mr Deveaux] claimed the rain from the storm entered through the opening that had been created in the roof and water damaged his printing machines and stock beyond repair.

“He reported the incident to the insurers on September 12, 2017, and shortly thereafter made a claim for damaged stock in the amount of $19,610 and equipment replacement in the amount of $103,328.” This, though, was based on a report by a US printing and graphics specialist who had yet to physically visit Mr Deveaux’s business to inspect the damage himself, and was rejected by Security & General.

Mr Deveaux initiated legal action against the insurer for breach of contract under the insurance policy, and negligence, one year later in 2018. He demanded $234,448 for lost printing equipment; $25,000 to cover written-off stock; and $6,500 for the costs of having to fly an inspector to The Bahamas to assess damages and prepare a report. He also sought an unquantified sum for loss of income.

Security & General, though, stuck to its position that Mr Deveaux’s claim was excluded under the policy’s terms and “no insurable risks” had arisen to require payout.

Mr Deveaux, in his evidence, asserted that when he entered the store on September 9, 2017, he stepped in water on the floor. “Waddling through the water, I looked up and noticed a rip in the roof. Then I noticed that the equipment and materials in the room were extremely damaged and/or destroyed as a result of rain entering the building through the hole in the roof,” he alleged.

The Bahamas Rubber Stamp Printing proprietor called the police, assuming there had been a break-in, but their investigation revealed nothing had been stolen. He contacted Security & General, which later received a letter from the Royal Bahamas Police Force stating that unknown “culprits removed the plywood to the northern section [of the shop], gained entry and searched but nothing was stolen”.

Ms Johnson, the loss adjuster, inspected the premises a few days later. Larry Cabrera, the US print specialist, eventually flew into Nassau on November 28, 2017, to conduct a physical inspection after Ms Johnson said no report would be published unless it was done by someone who actually visited Bahamas Rubber Stamp Printing.

“Concerned that the process of dealing with his claim was taking too long, the plaintiff’s attorney wrote a demand letter to the insurance company following up on the claim. This letter sought the replacement value indicated in the second Cabrera report, which far exceeded the original estimates, which as noted were based on second-hand information,” Justice Klein noted.

However, the loss adjusters replied on Marcy 18, 2018, informing Mr Deveaux that his claim had been denied on the basis that the loss and damage was “not caused by the direct force of the hurricane”, which meant it was excluded under the policy’s coverage terms and that there would be no payout. Hurricane Irma was also not mentioned on any of the property loss forms he filled in.

But Ms Johnson, in her evidence on Security & General’s behalf, wrote: “Upon examination of the roof, it was apparent that only a relatively small section of it had been exposed, and it appeared to me that only a few items of equipment could have been exposed to rainwater. I took photographs during my initial site inspection. These photographs show that the equipment was aged and looked obsolete….

“Based on my observations at the site and the thorough investigations conducted, I do not accept that the alleged damage was caused by the direct force of Hurricane Irma.” Ms Johnson later testified during the trial that the impact to the machines and equipment from the water intrusion “did not look like fresh damage”.

Justice Klein, summing up his observations of the trial, wrote: “I have given careful consideration to the evidence of the plaintiff, and I conclude with some regret that I did not find him to be a credible witness. At times he was evasive and argumentative, and there were significant gaps in his evidence that were never logically explained.”

After initially stating that the water inside the business “was just a flood” that he had been “waddling in”, Mr Deveaux - when cross-examined by Raynard Rigby KC for Security & General - was unable to confirm whether it was one-inch deep as he originally suggested. And, despite describing it as a “large hole” in the roof in his insurance claim, he instead told the Supreme Court that the plywood was “turned up” at one corner or side.

Justice Klein said Mr Deveaux was “also equivocal about what caused the damage to the roof”, adding that his answers were “were wholly inconsistent with his case and evidence” and that other “gaps” in his evidence were exposed - including that the raised plywood was not sufficient t allow someone to enter the building.

“He certainly could not have known that they were ‘destroyed’, even accepting his explanation that printing equipment needed to be kept dry,” Justice Klein added of the machines. “I prefer the evidence of the adjuster that the damage - or certainly some of it - was not fresh damage. By his own evidence, the machines were over 20 years old.

“Furthermore, the plaintiff falsely stated that the technician had travelled and physically inspected the equipment, when this was clearly not the case. The plaintiff attempted to walk this back only when the claims manager caught him in the false statement, but it was a clear representation that the inspection had been done.” It was eventually performed several months later by Mr Cabrera.

“I must say that the damage said to have been done to the roof occurred in rather mysterious circumstances. It seems strange also that the plaintiff admitted in cross-examination that in the 38 years or so that he operated the business, this was his first time taking out insurance on the equipment, which was effective from September 4, 2017, to September 3, 2018. The incident allegedly occurred on the 8th or morning of September 9.

“In any event, I accept the evidence of the adjuster that only a relatively small section of the roof had been exposed, and even if rain came in, only a few items could have been wet from the rain. It was unlikely that it could have caused the full-scale damage alleged by the plaintiff, as the plywood was not completely removed and only one of the ends raised. By his own evidence, the standing water was only half to one inch on the floor, and therefore it could not have damaged the machines by immersion.”

Justice Klein said the key issue for him to determine was whether the hole in the roof was caused by “alleged burglars” or directly by Hurricane Irma. He added that it also revolved around the doctrine of “proximate insurance”, which is the primary reason for loss or damage that can be directly linked to an insured event. It is the factor that sets the events that caused a loss in motion.

“The plaintiff argues that there were concurrent causes - the hole in the roof and the rain - and that the hole was the proximate cause. The defendant argues that the rain was the proximate cause, and the manner of its ingress was an excepted peril under the terms of the insurance policy,” Justice Klein wrote.

“In my view, having regard to the facts of this case, the proximate cause of the loss was the ingress of the rain through the hole created in the roof. I accept that while damage caused by rain or water would otherwise have been an insured peril, it was excluded under the clear terms of Clause eight unless the water or rain entered the building through ‘openings in the roof or walls made by the direct force of the said contingencies’ - hurricane, tropical storm, windstorm, tornado.”

Justice Klein said there was no evidence that Irma caused structural damage to Bahamas Rubber Stamp Printing’s business and triggered the insurance policy. And he backed Security & General’s argument that there was no evidence of malice or a burglary.

“The fact that a hole was created in the roof, while it may have provided an opening that allowed the ingress of the rain, was not in my view a proximate cause of the damage. Had the hole been made and no hurricane was travelling, or there was no rainfall, the damage to the equipment and stock would not have occurred,” he added.

“So it cannot be said that X (the hole in the roof) caused Y (the damage to the equipment and stock). As noted, there may have been no loss or damage at all if there was no rain.” As a result, Justice Klein dismissed Mr Deveaux’s claim.