The court reversed judgment in favor of the policyholder after finding that the trial court erred in giving its jury instruction on the efficient proximate cause doctrine. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Salkey, 2016 Fl. App. LEXIS 2840 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2016). The Salkeys had an all-risk homeowners policy from Citizens. The policy contained an exclusion for loss caused by sinkholes, but the Salkeys purchased a sinkhole loss coverage endorsement which provided coverage for "direct physical loss" caused by sinkhole activity. The Salkeys presented a sinkhole claim to Citizens. The claim was denied after Citizens determined that the loss was caused by soils in a reclaimed mine zone. The Salkeys then sued for breach of contract. At the trial, the parties disputed causation. The Salkeys' expert agreed that the reclaimed mine zone contributed to the damage, but testified that the sinkhole activity was the most substantial factor in the loss. Citizens' expert testified that there was no sinkhole activity and that the damage was caused by soils in the reclaimed mine zone. The jury instructions stated that the burden of proof was on Citizens to prove that all of the damage was caused by conditions excluded by the policy. More specifically, Citizens had the burden to prove that all of the damage was non-sinkhole related. During closing arguments, the Salkeys' attorney emphasized the burden-of-proof instruction, arguing that Citizens had to prove the damage was 100 percent non-sinkhole related. The jury returned a verdict for the Salkeys. On appeal, the court ruled that the trial court erred as a matter of law by requiring Citizens to prove that no portion of the Salkeys' loss was sinkhole related. Once the insured proved a loss occurred during the policy period, the burden shifted to the insurer to show that the loss resulted from an excluded cause. Under a first party policy that involved multiple perils, the fact finder had to apply the efficient proximate cause doctrine to determine the cause of the loss. Under the efficient proximate cause doctrine, the jury had to determine which peril was the most substantial factor in the loss. If the efficient proximate cause of the loss was a covered peril, the loss was covered; if it was an excluded peril, the loss was not covered. Here, instead of requiring Citizens to prove that the efficient proximate cause of the Salkeys' loss was an excluded peril not related to sinkhole activity, the trial court imposed a higher burden. It required Citizens to prove that all of the damage was excluded and non-sinkhole related. Therefore, the final judgment was reversed and the mater was remanded for a new trial.
Follow our page in Facebook "Insurance Online". from Insurance Law Hawaii
