Security First Insurance Company, Appellant, v. John Czelusniak, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D19-589. L.T. Case No. 16-32003.

Even where there is more than one contributing peril to a loss, coverage can be precluded if the policy expressly sets forth anti-concurrent language.

The Third District Court of Appeal has shed light on the power of anti-concurrent language within homeowners policies of insurance. Specifically, in Czelusniak, the court evaluated a property loss involving both a covered peril and an excluded peril. Instead of focusing on the proper doctrine of relief to apply [Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine or Concurrent Cause Doctrine], as in Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co., Inc., 208 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 2016), the court was tasked with determining the way in which to assess a property loss involving both a covered peril and excluded peril when the Insured policy contains an anti-concurrent provision. The court, focusing on the plain language of the policy, reversed and remanded the trial court’s decision which applied the concurrent cause doctrine, thereby entering a directed verdict in favor of the insured. Upon review, the Third DCA found that the trial court erred in utilizing the concurrent cause doctrine as it essentially disregarded the plain language of the insurance policy. The court explained that even where there is more than one contributing peril to a loss, coverage can be precluded if the policy expressly sets forth anti-concurrent language.

 

Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2020 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2020 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.