Background
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appealed a final judgment for its insureds, Jorge and Sandra Diaz, entered consistently with a jury verdict. The appeal arose from a Miami-Dade County Circuit Court case concerning water damage associated with the property’s air-conditioning system.
Citizens argued that the trial court should have granted its motion for directed verdict. The policy excluded damage caused by constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water, subject to an exception for damage that was unknown to the insureds and hidden within walls or ceilings, beneath floors, or above ceilings.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed. Reviewing the directed-verdict issue de novo, the court concluded that the evidence, viewed favorably to the insureds, permitted the jury to find that the policy’s exception to the leakage exclusion applied.
The insureds met their burden to establish that the air-conditioning-system leakage damage was unknown to them and hidden within the structure as required by the exception. The court also found Citizens’ remaining arguments insufficient to warrant reversal.
Key Takeaways
- An insured bears the burden to prove an exception to a policy exclusion.
- Evidence supported the jury’s finding that the leakage was unknown and hidden within the structure.
- The appellate court affirmed the final judgment for the insureds.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a water-leakage exclusion may not defeat coverage when the insured proves the policy’s hidden-and-unknown-damage exception. It also illustrates the demanding directed-verdict standard when the record permits reasonable jurors to differ on a material factual issue.