United States: Florida Appellate Court Finds Concurrent Cause Doctrine Applies If Insurer Fails To Establish Either A Sole Or Efficient Proximate Cause Of Loss

A Florida appellate court recently held that if an insurer fails to establish a sole or efficient proximate cause of loss, and there are no applicable anti-concurrent cause provisions, then the concurrent cause doctrine applies. Jones v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co., 235 So.3d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

The insureds made a claim under their all-risks homeowners' policy for hailstorm damage to their roof. The insurer denied the claim based on the policy exclusions for wear and tear; marring; deterioration; faulty, inadequate or defective design; neglect; existing damage; and weather conditions. The insureds sued for breach of contract. Before trial, the insureds sought to amend the proposed jury instructions to apply the concurrent cause doctrine and, thus, the insureds would not be required to prove that the hailstorm was the most substantial or responsible cause of the damage. The trial court disagreed, finding that the efficient proximate cause doctrine applied. The jury determined that the insureds did not satisfy their burden of proof to demonstrate that the hailstorm was the most substantial or responsible cause of the damage, and the court entered final judgment in favor of the insurer. The insureds appealed.

On appeal, the insureds argued that the trial court incorrectly applied the efficient proximate cause. The appellate court agreed, noting that the jury should have first determined whether an efficient proximate cause could be identified and, if the answer was in the negative, a follow-up instruction would have applied the concurrent cause doctrine, requiring the jury to decide if at least one of the concurrent causes was covered by the policy. The appellate court further concluded that once the insured established that the damage occurred during the policy period, the burden of proof then shifts to the insurer to establish that (a) there was a sole cause of loss; or (b) if there was more than one cause, there was an "efficient proximate cause" of the loss. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.