In a case involving destruction of a mobile home by Hurricane Ivan, the Florida Court of Appeal addressed proper jury instructions regarding the burden of proof under an anti-concurrent causation clause. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Hamilton, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9885 (Fla. Ct. App. July 7, 2010).
The insureds had both a flood policy and a policy from Citizens insuring their home against loss caused by wind. The Citizens policy excluded coverage for losses caused by water damages, such as resulting from flood, waves, tidal water, and overflow. An anti-concurrent causation clause stated that loss caused directly or indirectly by an excluded peril was "excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss."
When storm surge from Hurricane Ivan washed their home away, the insureds submitted a claim under their flood policy. A sworn proof of loss form sought the full value of their home based on "flood loss." Full policy limits were eventually paid under the flood policy.
Thereafter, the insureds presented a claim for total loss of their home under the Citizens policy based on wind loss. Citizens determined the only damage caused by wind was tree damage to the roof, and consequently paid $6,370 to the insureds.
The insureds then sued Citizens, seeking full policy limits. The trial court granted the insureds' motion in limine to bar evidence of the amount of the flood policy payments. The parties' experts disagreed on whether the mobile home sustained anything more than minor wind damage before being washed away by storm surge. The jury found that wind caused a total loss of the home and awarded policy limits as damages. The court entered a final judgment in accordance with the jury verdict, subject to an offset in the amount previously paid for wind damage.
On appeal, Citizens first challenged the trial court's ruling on the motion in limine. Citizens was allowed to reference the flood coverage, the flood damage and the flood loss claim, except for the dollar amount. Citizens was also allowed to attempt to prove through expert testimony that the loss was caused entirely by flood. Noting that the collateral source rule barred evidence of the dollar amount of flood insurance payments, the Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion.
Regarding the jury instructions, Citizens requested the following instruction on the insureds' burden to prove damages were caused solely by wind:
The policy excludes any loss caused directly or indirectly by and of water damage. This loss is excluded under the policy regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.
Accordingly, you are instructed that you cannot award for any loss caused by flooding or storm surge under the Citizens policy. [The insureds] must prove that damage was caused by wind alone versus what damage was caused in conjunction with any other cause or event acting concurrently or in any sequence with wind.
Rejecting this proposed instruction, the trial court instructed the jury:
To establish their claim, [the insured] has the burden to prove by the greater weight of the evidence their property sustained losses as a result of wind. Under the policy, Citizens is obligated to pay for all loss to the insured property caused by wind-related damage and is not required to pay for loss caused by excluded perils such as water damage.
The trial court's instruction was nearly identical to Citizens' proposed instruction. Citizens desired an instruction requiring the insureds' to "prove what damage . . . was caused by wind alone." The court ultimately instructed the jury: (1) that the insureds had the burden to prove losses "sustained . . . as a result of wind"; and (2) that Citizens would not be liable for "loss caused by excluded perils such as water damage . . . ." There was no abuse of discretion in refusing Citizens' proposed instruction.