190 So. 3d 1092
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2008, Salkeys insured their home with Citizens, an all-risk policy with a sinkhole loss endorsement.
- Citizens investigated Salkeys’ sinkhole claim via MCD, which found no sinkhole involvement and attributed damage to soils in a reclaimed mine zone, leading to denial of the claim.
- Salkeys sued for breach of contract; trial outcome included a directed verdict in Salkeys’ favor on their threshold burden to prove damage occurred during the policy period.
- At trial, Citizens sought to apply the efficient proximate cause doctrine but the court gave an incorrect burden-of-proof instruction that required Citizens to prove all damages were excluded and non-sinkhole related.
- The jury rendered a verdict for Salkeys; final judgments awarded damages and attorneys’ fees, which Citizens challenged on appeal.
- The appellate court reversed the judgments and remanded for a new trial, due to misleading and incorrect jury instructions regarding burden of proof and the efficient proximate cause standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instructions properly stated burden of proof | Salkeys contend Citizens should prove the efficient proximate cause (most substantial factor) was an excluded peril. | Citizens argue the Salkeys must prove all damage was caused by a non-sinkhole peril to obtain coverage. | Instruction improper; burden applied incorrectly; remand for new trial applying Sebo. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Munoz, 158 So.3d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (burden shifts to insurer after insured proves a loss occurred during the policy period)
- American Home Assurance Co. v. Sebo, 141 So.3d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (efficient proximate cause doctrine to determine most responsible factor in a multi-peril loss)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Vanater, 297 So.2d 293 (Fla. 1974) (instruction that confuses the jury may be reversible error)