Appeals Court Reverses Verdict, Finds Trial Court Erred in Shifting Burden of Proof in Insurance Dispute

An appellate court ruled in favor of the policyholders, holding that the trial court improperly approved a special verdict form that placed an undue burden on them in their breach of contract claim against the insurance carrier. 

The Vastas appealed a final judgment in favor of Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, attempting to “find merit in their argument that the verdict form approved by the trial court effectively imposed an erroneous burden of proof…” The basis of the underlying insurance dispute was the submission of a water leak claim under an all-risks policy issued by Universal to the Vastas. 

In their breach of contract suit, the Vastas alleged Universal failed to provide full coverage and issue a payment under the policy. The approved jury instructions for the trial included elements that the Vastas needed to prove in order to prevail. The Vastas requested a standard verdict form asking, “whether the Vastas had proven that a loss occurred during the policy period,” and the rest of the form addressed Universal’s defenses. However, Universal argued a special verdict form was needed for the Vastas’ claim as it was more of a breach of contract claim as opposed to an insurance coverage claim. The trial court agreed with Universal, concluding that the Vastas’ claim was “not a traditional denial of coverage case,” and approved a special verdict form which assigned the Vastas the burden of proving several points.

Here, the court agreed with the Vastas’ argument on appeal that the special interrogatory verdict form from the trial court imposed a burden on them that was not consistent with the law. The court details its position on this issue, specifically, that the general rule of evidence is that the plaintiff seeking recovery under an all-risks policy has the burden of proving a loss occurred while the policy was in effect. Further, once this burden is satisfied, the burden then shifts to the insurer to prove an exclusion of coverage. 

The court found that the Vastas only had the initial burden of proving a loss occurred and Universal bore the burden of proving any exclusions. Therefore, since the verdict form imposed burdens on the Vastas that were inconsistent with settled Florida law, the court concluded the trial court abused its discretion by approving the special verdict form. 

_{Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – June 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}