SafePoint Insurance Company v. Riley Ellison, Jr.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 25, 2026
• Docket: 3D2024-1126
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 25, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1126 Lower Tribunal No. 18-12573-CA-01 ________________

SafePoint Insurance Company, Appellant,

vs.

Riley Ellison, Jr., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.

Bickford & Chidnese, LLP, and Patrick M. Chidnese and Frieda C. Lindroth (Tampa), for appellant.

The Nation Law Firm, and Mark A. Nation and Paul W. Pritchard (Longwood), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

GORDO, J. SafePoint Insurance Company (“SafePoint”) appeals the trial court’s

entry of final judgment denying its motion for directed verdict and denying its

motion for a new trial following a jury verdict. The underlying case concerns

the failure of a plumbing drainpipe of the air conditioning unit resulting in

water flooding the air conditioning closet, kitchen and living room, thus

causing damage to the interior and mold growth. The subject insurance

policy is an “all-risk” policy. “With an all-risk policy, the insured is only

required to prove that damage occurred during the policy period.” Sec. First

Ins. Co. v. Czelusniak, 305 So. 3d 717, 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (citing Jones

v. Federated Nat’l Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 936, 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)).

“Subsequently, the burden shifts to the insurer to prove that one of the policy

exclusions bars coverage.” Id. “If the insurer does not meet its burden, the

insurer must cover the loss.” Id.

It is undisputed that the property sustained damage during the

coverage period and that a significant amount of water came from the air

conditioning unit due to a clog in its plumbing drainpipe. Thus, the issue at

trial was one of causation—whether the property damage was caused solely

by water or caused in whole or in part by mold to bar coverage due to policy

exclusions. SafePoint asserts there was no reasonable evidence to

conclude Ellison’s loss was not caused in whole or in part, or in any

2 sequence by mold. The evidence presented at trial shows that the cause of

loss in the case was disputed—whether the damage was caused by water,

mold, or a combination of water and mold.

After considering the conflicting evidence and the jury instructions

agreed upon by both parties—which required a verdict for SafePoint if the

greater weight of the evidence showed that any unpaid claimed damages

were caused in whole or in part by mold—the jury returned a verdict in favor

of Ellison.

Based on the competing testimony, the jury could reasonably have

concluded that it was solely water, rather than mold, in whole or in part, that

caused the damage to the property. See Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co. v.

Bermudez, 388 So. 3d 165, 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“Simply stated, the trial

came down to a so-called ‘battle of the experts,’ requiring the factfinder to

‘resolve the issues upon which the experts differ.’ We find no basis to

reverse the trial court’s denial of the motion for directed verdict on the policy’s

soil movement exclusion. Based upon the competing expert testimony, the

jury could reasonably have concluded that it was the shock waves, and not

soil or earth movement, that shook the house and caused damage to the

Insured’s home. As such, the trial court properly denied Tower Hill’s motions

for directed verdict, new trial, and judgment in accordance with the earlier

3 motion for directed verdict.” (quoting Hidalgo v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 323

So. 3d 338, 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021))).

Since the evidence regarding causation was conflicting and supported

different reasonable inferences when viewed in the light most favorable to

Ellison—the nonmoving party—the trial court properly denied the motion for

directed verdict and did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. See

Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Blanco, No. 3D23-2271, 2026 WL 291059, at *2,

(Fla. 3d DCA February 4, 2026) (“[W]e must affirm the trial court’s denial of

the motion for directed verdict ‘if there is conflicting evidence or if different

reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence, because the issue

is factual and should be submitted to the jury for resolution.’” (quoting

Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Guyton, 388 So. 3d 50, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023))).

Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment in all regards.

Affirmed.