Court Opinion

ID: 9957000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 15:04:41.842622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:02.323881
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
                        SECOND DISTRICT

           CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,

                                Appellant,

                                     v.

              ARIS BARBERAN and DELAIDA BARBERAN,

                                Appellees.

                              No. 2D22-2744

                               April 3, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Caroline Tesche
Arkin, Judge.

Kathryn L. Ender of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Coral Gables; and Nicole M.
Fluet and Michael D. Ruel of Galloway Johnson Tompkins Burr, Tampa,
for Appellant.

Raymond T. Elligett, Jr., and Amy S. Farrior of Buell & Elligett, P.A.,
Tampa; Aaron S. Kling of Kling Law, P.A., Tampa; Sarah Hibbard of
Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Tampa; and Mark Nation of The Nation Law
Firm, Longwood, for Appellees.

SILBERMAN, Judge.
     Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appeals a final judgment
entered after a jury verdict finding in favor of Aris and Delaida Barberan
in their breach of insurance contract claim related to sinkhole damage to
their property. We affirm on all issues without discussion except to
address Citizens' argument that the trial court erred in giving jury
instructions relating to each parties' burden of proof.
      The Barberans' home was insured under an all-risks policy issued
by Citizens,1 which was in effect from February 12, 2012, to February
12, 2013. Although the policy excludes damage caused by sinkholes,
earth movement, and settlement, the Barberans purchased a Sinkhole
Loss Coverage Endorsement.2 The endorsement defines "sinkhole loss"
as " '[s]tructural damage' to the 'principal building,' including the
foundation caused by 'sinkhole activity.' "
      Citizens argues that the trial court erred by merely instructing the
jury that the Barberans' burden was to prove damage to their home
during the policy period and, if they did so, then Citizens had the burden
to prove that the loss was excluded from coverage. We conclude that the
trial court did not err.
      In Mejia v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 161 So. 3d 576 (Fla.
2d DCA 2014), this court stated that "an insured claiming under an all-
risks policy has the burden of proving that the insured property suffered
a loss while the policy was in effect. The burden then shifts to the
insurer to prove that the cause of the loss was excluded from coverage
under the policy's terms." Id. at 578 (citing Hudson v. Prudential Prop. &
Cas. Ins. Co., 450 So. 2d 565, 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)). Consistent with
Mejia, the trial court instructed the jury regarding the burden of proof as
follows:
      The issue for your determination in this case is whether the
      damage occurred to the plaintiff's residence during the policy
      period.
            Plaintiffs have the burden of proof to establish that
      while their policy was . . . in force, they experienced damage

      1 The Barberans' policy is Homeowners HO-3 Special Form Policy.

      2 The Sinkhole Loss Coverage Endorsement is Form CIT 23 94 01

12.

                                      2
     to their home. If plaintiffs meet their burden, the burden of
     proof then shifts to the defendant.
     On its defense, defendant has the burden to prove that all of
     the damages to the [plaintiffs'] residence is caused by an
     excluded cause and not in combination with a covered peril.
     If the greater weight of the evidence establishes that
     defendant has met its burden on its defense, then your
     verdict will be for defendant and against plaintiffs.
          If, however, the greater weight of the evidence does not
     establish that defendant has met its burden on its defense,
     then your verdict will be for plaintiff[s] and against defendant.
           ....
           The policy of insurance covers direct physical damage to
     the [plaintiffs'] property that occurred within the policy period
     of February 12, 2012 through February 12, 2013, subject to
     the policy terms, conditions and exclusions.
           To meet their initial burden, plaintiffs need only prove
     that damage occurred during the February 12, 2012 through
     February 12, 2013 policy period.
           ....
          If the insurer determines that there is no structural
     damage, including sinkhole loss, the insurer may deny the
     claim.
     In support of its argument that the trial court failed to properly
instruct the jury as to the burden of proof, Citizens relies primarily on a
statutory change that was in effect during the policy period. The
statutory change, which was not an issue in Mejia, added a definition for
the term "structural damage," specifying what would constitute such
damage. See ch. 11-39, § 22, Laws of Fla.; cf. § 627.706(2)(k) Fla. Stat.
(2012). Citizens maintains that the trial court should have instructed
the jury that the Barberans had to prove structural damage to their
property and not just generalized property damage. The Barberans
respond that the statutory change did not alter the burden of proof and

                                     3
that the trial court's instruction was fully consistent with the applicable
law.
       We agree that the addition of a definition for the term "structural
damage" to section 627.706(2) did not alter an insured's burden of proof.
Cf. Hegel v. First Liberty Ins. Corp., 778 F.3d 1214, 1222 (11th Cir. 2015)
(declining to incorporate the definition of "structural damage" in section
627.706 into an insurance policy and reiterating that a court may not
rewrite a contract and was required to "determine the plain meaning of
the term 'structural damage' "). As the trial court correctly explained:
       Under an "all-risk" policy of insurance, "[t]he insured has the
       initial burden of proof to establish that the damage at issue
       occurred during a period in which the damaged property had
       insurance coverage." Jones v. [Federated] Nat'l Ins. Co., 235
       So. 3d 936, 941 (Fla 4th DCA 2018). Once an insured meets
       this initial burden, the burden shifts to the insurer to show
       that the loss resulted from an excluded cause. See Citizens
       Prop. Ins. v. Munoz, 158 So. 3d 671, 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
       (holding it was error to place the burden of proof on the
       insured to prove sinkhole loss). "The Insured does not need
       to disprove any excluded clauses." Id. at 674. See also
       Citizens Prop. Ins. v. Salkey, 260 So. 3d 371[, 375 (Fla. 2d
       DCA 2018)] (holding "[h]ere, the jury instructions improperly
       informed the jury that the Salkeys had the burden to prove
       'that their property experienced damages from a sinkhole[']").
       [(Emphasis added.)]
       Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment.

       Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

                                      4