Tag Archives: anti-concurrent cause

QUICK NOTE: BEWARE OF AN ANTI-CONCURRENT CAUSE PROVISION IN YOUR PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY

Posted on by

Paying the lowest premium for property insurance is oftentimes not a great thing because, as with everything else, “you get what you pay for.”   If you are paying a lower premium, it is for a reason.  You likely have a restrictive policy that excludes more coverage (and, perhaps, all coverage) than you’d actually like in the event your property sustains a loss.   Think about the coverage you are looking for before deciding to get the policy with the lowest premium.

For instance, there are policies with an exclusion that precludes coverage for water penetration “through the roof system or exterior walls or windows.”  Think about this exclusion.  Water penetration will undoubtedly come from one or a combination of these places, meaning this exclusion totally restricts coverage for water intrusion claims.  Moreover, property insurance policies are also including anti-concurrent cause language in the policy, which is language that says, “Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.”  “‘An anti-concurrent cause provision is a provision in a first-party insurance policy that provides that when a covered cause and non-covered cause combine to cause a loss, all losses directly and indirectly caused by those events are excluded from coverage.” Security First Ins. Co. v.   Czelusniak, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1151b, n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).

In Czelusniak, an insured had an all-risk property insurance policy with this water penetration exclusion and an anti-concurrent cause provision. The insured sustained water penetration through windows, the walls, and doors, resulting in water damage.   The exclusion bars water penetration through windows and walls but mentions nothing about doors.  But, it did not matter because of the anti-concurrent cause provision:

While there is no provision in the policy expressly excluding damage from water penetrating through the doors of the dwelling, the policy expressly excluded damage from water penetrating through the “roof system or exterior walls or windows . . . .” Because evidence of water entering through the exterior walls and windows was undisputed and is expressly excluded by the policy, the entire loss is excluded from coverage due to the anti-concurrent cause provision regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.

***

Accordingly, the anti-concurrent cause provision, coupled with the undisputed evidence that the loss was caused by a combination of both excluded and covered perils, foreclosed the analysis of whether the jury could legally or factually separate the damage caused by water coming through the door from water coming through the walls and windows. Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in directing the verdict in favor of the insured and reverse and remand for the trial court to direct the verdict in favor of Security First.

Czelusniak, supra.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

PROPERTY (INCLUDING ALL-RISK) INSURANCE POLICIES AND THE EFFICIENT PROXIMATE CAUSE DOCTRINE

Posted on by


An important new insurance coverage case came out dealing with “all risk” property insurance policies (such as homeowners or builders risk policies). The case, American Home Assurance Co. v. Sebo, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1982a (2d DCA 2013), discusses when coverage applies when both excluded and covered perils contribute to a loss / damage. The case also discusses the application of anti-concurrent cause language in the policy. These are both important insurance coverage issues.

 

In this case, an owner purchased a four-year old home in 2005 and obtained an “all risk” homeowner’s property insurance policy. The policy was not a standard form policy but a manuscript policy specifically created for purposes of the house. Almost immediately after the purchase, rainwater started to intrude in numerous locations throughout the house. Then, Hurricane Wilma struck causing further damage to the house. The damage to the house was so extensive that it could not be repaired and the house had to be demolished.

 

The owner submitted an insurance claim to its carrier, but the carrier denied coverage except for tendering $50,000 based on language in the policy that provided for $50,000 worth of coverage for ensuing (resulting) damages caused by fungi, wet or dry rot, or bacteria. (This is often referred to as the mold exclusion and some policies allow for ensuing damages caused by mold up to a specified amount.)

 

The owner sued the sellers, the contractor, and the architect (arguing defective construction) and settled with each of them. The owner also sued its property insurance carrier in a declaratory action for insurance coverage.

 

An all risk policy, such as the policy in this case, starts out covering all risks except the numerous risks or perils that are excluded. As the Court explained:

 

“Property insurance is a contract between the insured and the insurer to cover property losses that are either caused by certain perils that are specifically named in the policy or are caused by “all perils” except for those specifically excluded from coverage. These perils are usually physical forces such as fire, rain, and wind.”  Sebo, supra.

 

In this policy (like most property insurance policies), there was a faulty workmanship / design exclusion where the policy did not cover loss caused by faulty, inadequate, or defective planning, design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, etc.

 

The coverage issue in the case centered on the undisputed fact that more than one cause (excluded and covered) contributed to the owner’s loss or damage, such as faulty construction, rain, and wind. When this occurs, what legal doctrine applies to determine whether the loss is covered?

 

The owners wanted the legal doctrine known as the concurrent cause doctrine to apply. Under this doctrine, insurance coverage applies “when multiple perils act in concert to cause a loss, and at least one of the perils is insured and is a concurrent cause of the loss, even if not the prime or the efficient cause.” Sebo, supra. In other words, if faulty workmanship (not covered) and rain (likely covered) concurrently contribute to a loss, the loss would be covered under the concurred cause doctrine.

 

The insurance carrier wanted the legal doctrine known as the efficient proximate cause doctrine to apply. Under this doctrine, “the finder of fact, usually the jury, determines which peril was the most substantial or responsible factor in the loss. If the policy insures against that peril, coverage is provided. If the policy excludes that peril, there is no coverage.” Sebo, supra. In other words, if faulty workmanship (not covered) is the most substantial factor in the loss, the loss would not be covered.

 

The trial court applied the concurrent cause doctrine. However, on appeal, the Second District reversed finding that the efficient proximate cause doctrine should apply to determine whether coverage exists. (For more on the application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine to all-risk property insurance policies, check out this article and this article.) 

 

The Court additionally discussed what is known as anti-concurrent cause language that exists in many insurance policies. An example of this language in the policy would be under the pollution exclusion which provided that the policy did not “cover any loss, directly or indirectly, and regardless of any cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss” caused by pollutants / contamination. Sebo, supra. Thus, based on this language, the concurrent cause and efficient proximate cause doctrines would be moot based on this anti-concurrent cause language. The Court dismissed this argument because the anti-concurrent cause language was not specifically incorporated into the faulty workmanship exclusion whereas it was specifically incorporated in other exclusions such as the pollution exclusion. (Importantly, other states have found this language to be unenforceable so there may be an argument as to the enforceability down the road that the Court did not delve into but noted.)

 

All-risk property insurance policies and named-peril policies are complicated. When a loss occurs, it is important to understand your property insurance policies in order to present claims and arguments for coverage. The Sebo case’s application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine is an important case because it is not uncommon that both weather-related issues and defective workmanship / design related issues contribute to the loss. This raises the “what came first, the chicken or the egg argument” because when this issue is tried by a jury, the insurer will likely argue that the weather-events would not have contributed to the loss if not for the defective workmanship / design so the defective workmanship / design must have been the substantial factor. Conversely, the owner will likely argue that he purchased a four-year old home and the defect issues did not surface until severe weather-related events, so the weather-related events must have been the substantial factor.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.