Citizens Property Insurance lost a $61,000 water damage appeal because it failed to provide a complete trial record to appellate judges.
The Third District Court of Appeal ruled Wednesday that Citizens failed to provide enough evidence to overturn a $61,017.51 jury award to Miami-Dade County homeowners Sandra Blanco and Carlos Luis Blanco, affirming the trial court's decision in favor of the policyholders.
The case centered on water damage the Blancos' home sustained on November 16, 2015. After they filed a claim, Citizens denied it three months later, stating the cause of loss was not covered under the policy.
The insurer pointed to language in the policy that bars coverage for constant or repeated water seepage occurring over time, even when combined with a covered event. That provision, known as an anti-concurrent cause clause, stated the policy would not cover loss caused directly or indirectly by constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water which occurs over a period of time, regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.
The language specifically excluded damage from ongoing moisture exposure that results in wet or dry rot, fungi, deterioration, rust, decay or other corrosion.
At trial, Citizens argued the evidence showed the loss and ensuing damage was the result of constant or repeated exposure to moisture over a period of months, making it an excluded peril under the policy. The insurer maintained that even if some covered accidental water discharge occurred, the anti-concurrent cause provision wiped out any obligation to pay.
The Blancos told a different story. They maintained the damage came from a single sudden water event on November 16, 2015, which Sandra Blanco described as a flood in her home. Their position was straightforward: no gradual leak, no concurrent causes, just one accidental event covered by the policy.
The jury sided with the homeowners.
Citizens then sought a directed verdict, essentially asking the judge to throw out the jury's decision because the facts were so one-sided that no reasonable jury could have ruled for the Blancos. When that failed, Citizens appealed.
Here's where the case took an unusual turn. The three-judge appeals panel found that Citizens had not included the complete trial transcript in its appeal. Specifically, only a portion of Sandra Blanco's direct testimony made it into the appellate record.
Under Florida law, appeals courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to whoever won at trial, in this case the Blancos, drawing every reasonable inference flowing from the evidence in their favor.
Without the full testimony, the appeals court said it couldn't determine whether the trial evidence was truly one-sided or whether reasonable people could disagree about what caused the damage. And when conflicting evidence exists or different inferences can be drawn, the decision belongs to the jury.
In its opinion issued February 4, 2026, the appeals panel found the record provided was inadequate to conclude that the trial court erred.
The central question at trial was whether the damage stemmed solely from the November incident or resulted at least partly from constant or repeated water seepage or leakage over time. That factual dispute, the court said, was exactly the kind of issue juries are meant to resolve.
Citizens had hoped to rely on a 2020 Florida appeals court decision, Security First Insurance Co. v. Czelusniak, where similar anti-concurrent cause language led to a directed verdict for the insurer. In that case, the court found undisputed evidence that the loss was caused by a combination of both excluded and covered perils, and the jury could not legally or factually separate the damage caused by water coming through the door from water coming through the walls and windows.
But the Czelusniak precedent didn't help Citizens here because the appeals court couldn't verify what the trial evidence actually showed.
The court also rejected Citizens' other arguments on appeal, including objections to the admission of repair cost estimates, challenges to jury instructions about the anti-concurrent cause clause, and complaints about the homeowners' attorneys' closing arguments.
The decision isn't final yet, as Citizens could file a motion for rehearing.
For claims professionals, the case offers a reminder that winning policy language isn't enough. Even with a strong anti-concurrent cause provision, carriers need to ensure they preserve a complete record if they plan to appeal. In this instance, what Citizens left out of the record may have mattered more than what it put in.
The case also highlights ongoing challenges in applying anti-concurrent cause provisions in property claims, particularly when disputes arise over whether damage resulted from a single event or gradual deterioration. Those questions often come down to witness testimony and expert opinions, the kind of evidence juries weigh every day.
