SO, FLORIDA COURT REFUSES TO APPLY ACCC IN CASE AT BAR.
In the first-part case of American Home Assurance Co. v. Sebo, 2013 WL 5225271 (Fla. 2d DCA September 18, 2013), a Florida appellate court refused to align Florida with the many jurisdictions invalidating the so-called anti-concurrent cause exclusion. However, the court reached the same result in the case before it. The Florida appellate court held that the exclusion relied on by the carrier in that case was not enforceable in that case:
AHAC argues that the anti-concurrent cause language in its exclusion for defective work entitled it to a summary judgment on all of Sebo's claims except for the $50,000 it tendered for ensuing mold damages. We note that some states reject the application of these clauses.... [Citations omitted.] But Florida courts have not definitively weighed in on this topic. It is not necessary for us do so here because the language relied upon by AHAC was insufficient to exclude losses arising from concurrent causes.
* * *
Contrasted with the other exclusionary clauses in the same policy, AHAC's defective work exclusion simply did not exclude losses arising from concurrent causes.
American Home Assurance Co. v. Sebo, 2013 WL 5225271 *6 (Fla. 2d DCA September 18, 2013).
This appellate finding of ambiguity makes one thing clear: Insurance companies in Florida relying on "anti-concurrent cause exclusions" must at the least point to language in their policies that excludes concurrent causes of loss.
© 2014 by Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved. No claim to original U.S. Government works.
Please Read The Disclaimer.