141 So. 3d 195
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Sebo insured his Naples home with AHAC under a manuscript, all-risks policy.
- Property sustained rain- and hurricane-related damage; AHAC denied most losses.
- Sebo sued; jury favored Sebo; circuit court awarded over $8 million to Sebo.
- Court held new trial is required to reassess causation and coverage.
- Policy exclusions include faulty, inadequate, or defective planning/design; mold coverage exists up to $50,000.
- Case centers on whether multiple perils (rain, wind, construction defects) trigger coverage under efficient proximate cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether efficient proximate cause governs first-party property coverage | Sebo argues efficient proximate cause controls coverage. | AHAC contends Wallach concurrent causation applies or exclusions defeat coverage. | New trial required to apply efficient proximate cause framework. |
| Applicability of concurrent causation to first-party policy | Concurrent causation should render all-perils policy coverage if any insured peril contributes. | Wallach rejects concurrent causation for first-party policies. | The court declines Wallach analysis; remands to determine causation under efficient proximate cause. |
| Effect of anti-concurrent cause language in exclusion | AHAC’s anti-concurrent language should exclude concurrent losses. | Language insufficient to exclude concurrent causes. | Anti-concurrent language insufficient; no blanket exclusion on retrial. |
| Admissibility of settlements with codefendants under valued policy law | Evidence of settlements admissible under valued policy considerations. | Evidence should be limited by valued policy law and related statutes. | Retrial needed to clarify valued policy law issues and admissibility. |
| Whether retrial should address the total loss and policy limits | Total loss determination under policy limits and FEMA/total-loss standards. | Reassess damages and causation rather than impose new valuation. | Remand for new trial consistent with efficient proximate cause framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallach v. Rosenberg, 527 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (concurrent causation framework in first-party policies rejected by Garvey)
- Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 770 P.2d 704 (Cal. 1989) (distinguishes first-party vs liability; favors efficient proximate cause)
- Sabella v. Wisler, 377 P.2d 889 (Cal. 1963) (efficient proximate cause origin for perils under all-risk policies)
- Partridge, 514 P.2d 128 (Cal. 1978) (concurrent proximate cause for insured and non-auto peril)
- Phelps, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Phelps, 294 So.2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (early Florida take on multiple perils in first-party coverage)
- Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Cox, 967 So.2d 815 (Fla. 2007) (valued policy statute interpretation relevant to total loss scenarios)
- Ashe v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 50 So.3d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (admissibility of benefits received for uncovered perils under valued policy law)