Sebo v. American Home Assurance Company, Inc.

208 So.3d 694 (2016)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P purchased a home in April 2005, when it was four years old. D provided homeowners insurance as of the date of the purchase. The policy, which insured against 'all risks.' It was not a standard form policy but instead was created specifically for P's residence. The house and other permanent structures were insured for over $8,000,000. The policy also provided additional coverage for loss of use of the home. Shortly after the purchase, water began to intrude during rainstorms. Major water leaks were reported as early as May 31, 2005. P prepared a list of problems: leaks in the main house at the foyer, the living room, dining room, piano room, exercise room, master bathroom, and upstairs bathroom. By June 22, 2005, the property manager advised P of these leaks in writing. It became clear that the house suffered from major design and construction defects. After an August rain, paint along the windows just fell off the wall. In October 2005, Hurricane Wilma struck Naples and further damaged the residence. P eventually reported the damages to D on December 30, 2005. D investigated the claim, and in April 2006 it denied coverage for most of the claimed losses. The policy provided $50,000 in coverage for mold, and D tendered that amount. D stated that the rest is not covered. In May 2008, P renewed his claim and sent more information about the damages. D again denied the claim except for the $50,000 in mold damages. The residence was eventually demolished. In January 2007, Sebo filed suit against the sellers of the property, the architect who designed the residence, and the construction company that built it. D was added to the complaint in November 2009, with P seeking a declaration that the policy provided coverage for his damages. P settled his claims against a majority of all other defendants. The jurors found in favor of P, and the court eventually entered judgment against D. D appealed. On appeal, the Appeals Court found that there was more than one cause of the loss (defective construction, rain, and wind). The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, 'in which the causation of P's loss is examined under the efficient proximate cause theory.' The court specifically rejected concurrent causation. P appealed.