## Facts

- John Robert Sebo bought a four-year-old residence in Naples, Florida, insured under a manuscript “all-risk” homeowners policy issued by American Home Assurance Company, Inc. (AHAC).
- Soon after the purchase, the home experienced significant rain-related water intrusion and leaks in multiple rooms.
- Engineers attributed the ongoing damage in part to major design and construction defects that permitted water intrusion and progressive deterioration.
- Hurricane Wilma later struck and caused additional damage.
- Sebo submitted a claim; AHAC paid a limited amount for mold damage but otherwise denied coverage, relying primarily on exclusions for defective design, planning, workmanship, and construction.
- The damage ultimately required demolition of the home.
- Sebo sued various parties and sought a declaration that the AHAC policy covered the loss; after settling with non-insurer defendants, he proceeded against AHAC on coverage and bad faith.

## Issues

1. Under an all-risk homeowners policy, when independent covered and excluded perils combine to cause an indivisible loss and no single efficient cause can be identified, does Florida apply the concurrent cause doctrine or the efficient proximate cause doctrine?
2. If the concurrent cause doctrine applies, is coverage available when a covered peril is a concurrent cause of loss despite the contribution of an excluded peril?

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court’s decision and reinstated the trial court judgment for Sebo.
- The Court held that the concurrent cause doctrine governs when multiple independent causes combine to produce a loss and there is no reasonable way to identify a single proximate or “efficient” cause.
- Because covered weather-related perils (rain and hurricane winds) operated as concurrent causes with excluded construction/design defects, the loss was covered under the policy.
- The Court concluded the policy language did not clearly eliminate the concurrent cause doctrine for this type of combined-cause loss.

## Legal Principles

- In first-party property claims involving multiple independent perils that jointly cause an indivisible loss, Florida applies the concurrent cause doctrine when no efficient proximate cause can be determined.
- Under the concurrent cause doctrine, coverage may exist if a covered peril is a concurrent cause of the loss, even if an excluded peril also substantially contributed, absent clear policy language to the contrary.
- The efficient proximate cause doctrine is not suitable where the fact-finder cannot reasonably select one dominant cause that set the others in motion.
- An all-risk policy’s exclusions and related provisions must clearly displace the concurrent cause doctrine to bar coverage solely because an excluded peril is among the causes.

## Conclusion

Florida law provides coverage under an all-risk homeowners policy when covered and excluded independent perils combine to cause an indivisible loss and no single efficient cause can be identified; in that setting, the concurrent cause doctrine applies, and a covered concurrent cause supports coverage absent clear policy language negating that result.


Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co., 208 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 2016)