Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine

16 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Norwood M. Phelps
  294 So. 2d 362· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-05-21 ·cited 42×
  Hartford Accident & Indemnity appeals a summary judgment awarding homeowners coverage under an all-risks homeowner's insurance policy for water damage caused by a burst underground water pipe in the home's plumbing system. The court held that the policy's specific coverage for pl
• Sebo v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc.
  208 So. 3d 694· Fla.· 2016-12-01 ·cited 28×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that when multiple independent perils combine to cause an insured loss and at least one peril is excluded from an all-risk insurance policy, the concurrent cause doctrine (rather than efficient proximate cause doctrine) applies to determine coverage
• Jones v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co.
  235 So. 3d 936· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-01-17 ·cited 23×
  Under an all-risk insurance policy, once the insured establishes a covered loss occurred during the policy period, the burden shifts to the insurer to prove the loss arose from an excluded cause; if multiple concurrent causes exist and anti-concurrent cause provisions do not appl
• Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc. v. Sebo
  141 So. 3d 195· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-09-18 ·cited 12×
  American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) appeals a jury verdict awarding John Sebo over $8 million in homeowners insurance coverage for damages caused by multiple perils (defective construction, rain, and hurricane). The court reverses and remands for a new trial, rejecting the con
• Paulucci v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins.
  190 F. Supp. 2d 1312· M.D. Fla.· 2002-02-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that parties can contract around the concurrent cause doctrine through an anti-concurrent cause provision, and that the wear and tear exclusion is not ambiguous. Summary judgment is not warranted on the anti-concurrent cause defense due to disputed facts.
• Am. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. under Tr. Agreement v. AETNA Ins. Co.
  447 F.2d 680· 7th Cir.· 1971-08-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the insurance policies clearly excluded coverage for losses caused directly or indirectly by snow, even if wind was a contributing factor, and that the jury instructions accurately reflected this exclusion.
• Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Rona Salkey and Trevor Salkey
  190 So. 3d 1092· Fla. 2d DCA· 2016-02-26 ·cited 6×
  Under an all-risks homeowners policy with a sinkhole endorsement, Citizens bore the burden to prove that the efficient proximate cause of the loss—the most substantial or responsible factor—was an excluded peril, not the burden to prove that all damage was excluded. The trial cou
• Peek v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Fla.
  181 So. 3d 508· Fla. 2d DCA· 2015-09-25 ·cited 5×
  The Peeks appealed a directed verdict in favor of their insurance company, American Integrity, which denied coverage for damage to their home caused by defective Chinese drywall. The court affirmed, holding that the Peeks failed to establish that any covered peril was the efficie
• Pride Clean Restoration Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London
  331 So. 3d 841· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-12-01 ·cited 3×
  This case concerns whether a homeowners' insurance policy exclusion for mold remediation costs bars coverage for services performed after hurricane damage. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the exclusion to be clear and unambiguous.
• Rolyn Cos., Inc. v. R & J Sales of Tex., Inc.
  671 F. Supp. 2d 1314· S.D. Fla.· 2009-11-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding causation and the extent of damages, precluding summary judgment for either party concerning Crum & Forster's coverage obligations.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dwight H. Smith, M.D.
  929 F.2d 447· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the 'faulty workmanship' exclusion in the insurance policy was ambiguous and, under the interpretation most favorable to the insured, did not apply to the damage caused by the contractor's failure to protect the premises from rain. The contractor's failure was
• Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Meares Plumbing, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-17
  The court held that the insurance policy's mold exclusion barred coverage for the insured's claim, thus the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify.
• Atain Specialty Ins. Co. v. Isopo
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-07-26
  The court held that the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify the insureds because the state-court action arises out of an auto, triggering the policy's auto exclusion, and no exception applies. The insurer is entitled to recover defense costs.
• Southshore Hospitality Mgmt., LLC v. Indep. Specialty Ins. Co., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-01-25
  The court held that the insurance policy's virus exclusion unambiguously applied to losses caused by COVID-19, precluding coverage for business interruption and spoiled goods.
• Counter Culture Hospitality, LLC v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-01-04
  An all-risk commercial property insurance policy requiring 'direct physical loss or damage' caused by a 'covered cause of loss' does not provide coverage for business income losses resulting solely from government-ordered closures in response to COVID-19, where no direct physical
• Edison Kennedy, LLC v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-01-04
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege a covered cause of loss, as the policies required direct physical damage or loss, and that the virus exclusion barred coverage even if such damage were alleged.