Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Tower Hill Prime Insurance Co. v. Newell
Citations: 183 So. 3d 1247; 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 829; 2016 WL 264594Docket: No. 5D14-1363
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 21, 2016; Florida; State Appellate Court
The court affirmed the decision in Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Munoz, referencing 158 So.3d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). The ruling established that a sinkhole endorsement added to an "all risks" homeowners insurance policy does not alter the policy to a "named perils" policy. As such, the insured bears the burden of proving that the loss occurred within the policy period. If this burden is met, the insurer then must demonstrate that the loss resulted from an excluded cause. Additionally, in Mejia v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, 161 So.3d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), it was clarified that the presence of a sinkhole coverage endorsement does not change the "all risks" nature of the underlying policy, but rather narrows the exclusion related to earth movement. In this context, the insurer carries the burden of proof to show that the cause of the property loss is excluded under the policy's terms. Judges Torpy and Evander concurred, while Judge Berger concurred only in the result.