Tag Archives: all-risk insurance

QUICK NOTE: BEWARE OF AN ANTI-CONCURRENT CAUSE PROVISION IN YOUR PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY

Posted on by

Paying the lowest premium for property insurance is oftentimes not a great thing because, as with everything else, “you get what you pay for.”   If you are paying a lower premium, it is for a reason.  You likely have a restrictive policy that excludes more coverage (and, perhaps, all coverage) than you’d actually like in the event your property sustains a loss.   Think about the coverage you are looking for before deciding to get the policy with the lowest premium.

For instance, there are policies with an exclusion that precludes coverage for water penetration “through the roof system or exterior walls or windows.”  Think about this exclusion.  Water penetration will undoubtedly come from one or a combination of these places, meaning this exclusion totally restricts coverage for water intrusion claims.  Moreover, property insurance policies are also including anti-concurrent cause language in the policy, which is language that says, “Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.”  “‘An anti-concurrent cause provision is a provision in a first-party insurance policy that provides that when a covered cause and non-covered cause combine to cause a loss, all losses directly and indirectly caused by those events are excluded from coverage.” Security First Ins. Co. v.   Czelusniak, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1151b, n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).

In Czelusniak, an insured had an all-risk property insurance policy with this water penetration exclusion and an anti-concurrent cause provision. The insured sustained water penetration through windows, the walls, and doors, resulting in water damage.   The exclusion bars water penetration through windows and walls but mentions nothing about doors.  But, it did not matter because of the anti-concurrent cause provision:

While there is no provision in the policy expressly excluding damage from water penetrating through the doors of the dwelling, the policy expressly excluded damage from water penetrating through the “roof system or exterior walls or windows . . . .” Because evidence of water entering through the exterior walls and windows was undisputed and is expressly excluded by the policy, the entire loss is excluded from coverage due to the anti-concurrent cause provision regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.

***

Accordingly, the anti-concurrent cause provision, coupled with the undisputed evidence that the loss was caused by a combination of both excluded and covered perils, foreclosed the analysis of whether the jury could legally or factually separate the damage caused by water coming through the door from water coming through the walls and windows. Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in directing the verdict in favor of the insured and reverse and remand for the trial court to direct the verdict in favor of Security First.

Czelusniak, supra.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER ALL-RISK PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY

Posted on by

shutterstock_641983000A recent Florida case, Jones v. Federated National Ins. Co., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D164a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) discusses the burden of proof of an insured in establishing coverage under an all-risk property insurance policy.  Getting right to this critical point, the court explained the burden of proof as follows:

 

 

1. The insured has the initial burden of proof to establish that the damage at issue occurred during a period in which the damaged property had insurance coverage. If the insured fails to meet this burden, judgment shall be entered in favor of the insurer.

—

2. If the insured’s initial burden is met, the burden of proof shifts to the insurer to establish that (a) there was a sole cause of the loss, or (b) in cases where there was more than one cause, there was an “efficient proximate cause” of the loss.

—

3. If the insurer meets the burden of proof under either 2.(a) or 2.(b), it must then establish that this sole or efficient proximate cause was excluded from coverage by the terms of the insurance policy. If the insurer does so, then judgment shall be entered in its favor. If the insurer establishes that there was a sole or efficient proximate cause, but fails to prove that this cause was excluded by the all-risk insurance policy, then judgment shall be entered in favor of the insured.

—

4. If the insurer fails to establish either a sole or efficient proximate cause, and there are no applicable anti-concurrent cause provisions, then the concurrent cause doctrine must be utilized. Applying the concurrent cause doctrine, the insurer has the initial burden of production to present evidence that an excluded risk was a contributing cause of the damage.  If it fails to satisfy this burden of production, judgment shall be entered in favor of the insured.

—

5. If the insurer does produce evidence that an excluded risk was a concurrent cause of the loss, then the burden of production shifts to the insured to present evidence that an allegedly covered risk was a concurrent cause of the loss at issue. If the insured fails to satisfy this burden of production, judgment shall be entered in favor of the insurer.

—

6. If the insured produces evidence of a covered concurrent cause, the insurer bears the burden of proof to establish that the insured’s purported concurrent cause was either (a) not a concurrent cause (i.e., it had no (or a de minimis) causal role in the loss), or (b) excluded from coverage by the insurance policy. If the insurer fails to satisfy this burden of proof, judgment shall be entered in favor of the insured.

Jones, supra. 

 

In this case, the insured suffered roof damage and claimed it was the result of a hailstorm, a peril covered under the policy.  The property insurer denied coverage contending the roof damage was not covered under the policy due to certain exclusions including, without limitation: (i) wear and tear, (ii) faulty or defective design, and (iii) existing damage.  The homeowner argued that the concurrent cause doctrine should apply to determine if there was coverage under this all-risk property insurance policy.  (Check out this article for more on the concurrent cause doctrine.)  This doctrine holds that insurance coverage may exist if an excluded peril and covered peril concurrently cause a loss.   The trial court did not apply this doctrine; rather, it applied the doctrine known as the efficient proximate cause doctrine which holds that if there are concurrent causes for a loss, the peril that set the other peril in motion is the peril that the loss is attributable to, i.e., you are looking at the most responsible cause of the loss.  Thus, if an excluded peril set a covered peril in motion, i.e., it is the most responsible cause of the loss, the loss would be attributable to the excluded peril and not covered by the policy.

 

The court, relying on a Florida Supreme Court decision, maintained that it was error to instruct the jury on the efficient proximate cause doctrine without the jury first determining whether an efficient proximate cause of the loss could be determined.  If it could not be determined, the concurrent cause doctrine would apply and the jury would determine if one of the concurrent causes (perils) was covered under the policy.  For instance, if the jury could not determine whether one peril set another peril in motion, the jury would determine whether the hailstorm concurrently caused the roof damage with another peril (e.g., defective design); and, if so, whether the hailstorm is a covered peril such that the roof damage would be covered under the policy.

 

Notably, the court noted that certain exclusions the insurer relied on contain anti-concurrent cause language, which negates the application of the concurrent cause doctrine.  However, since some of the exclusions the insurer relied on did not specifically incorporate anti-concurrent cause language, the jury could have found that the hailstorm concurrently caused the roof damage with an exclusion that did not contain the anti-concurrent cause language meaning the concurrent cause doctrine would apply.

 

I know this is confusing.  I agree, it very well can be confusing.  Nonetheless, what this emphasizes is the importance of strategy when it comes to presenting a property insurance claim to trigger the application of the concurrent cause doctrine and preparing jury instructions, which is the law you want the jury to follow. This also emphasizes the importance of the verdict form which is the form the jury fills out to decide the outcome of the case.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.