Case Law Update: Citizens Property Insurance v. Blanco — Anti-Concurrent Causation and Water Damage Coverage Affirmed

Introduction

In Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Sandra Blanco and Carlos Luis Blanco, No. 3D23-2271 (Fla. 3d DCA, February 4, 2026), the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the policyholders on their breach of contract claim against Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Citizens had argued that its anti-concurrent causation clause barred all coverage because the water damage was caused, at least in part, by excluded constant or repeated seepage. The Third DCA disagreed and affirmed.

Full Court Opinion: Read Citizens v. Blanco on CourtListener

This is one of the most important recent decisions for public adjusters handling water damage claims in Florida, as it directly addresses how anti-concurrent causation clauses interact with covered water loss events.

Background and Facts

The Blancos owned a home in Miami-Dade County insured by Citizens Property Insurance. On November 16, 2015, the home sustained water damage due to a leak, and the Blancos filed an insurance claim. Citizens denied or contested the claim, and the Blancos filed a breach of contract action.

At trial, the primary dispute was whether the damage was caused solely by the November 16th water event — which the Blancos described as a "flood" of water in their home — or whether it was caused, at least in part, by constant or repeated water seepage or leakage, which is excluded under the policy even when it occurs in combination with a covered cause.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Blancos. Citizens moved for a directed verdict and, after the verdict, a motion for judgment in accordance with its directed verdict motion — both of which the trial court denied.

The Court's Decision

On appeal, Citizens raised four issues:

1. The trial court erred in denying the directed verdict because the anti-concurrent cause provision barred coverage
2. The court erred by permitting Blanco to introduce a repair estimate after she no longer owned the property
3. The jury instructions and verdict form on the anti-concurrent clause issue were improper
4. The denial of Citizens' motion for new trial based on improper closing argument was error

The Third DCA found no error by the trial court on any issue and affirmed. Writing specifically on the directed verdict issue, the court held that the record was inadequate for the appellate court to conclude the trial court erred. The record on appeal contained only a portion of Blanco's direct testimony, and under the applicable standard of review — which requires evaluating evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party — the court was required to affirm.

The court emphasized the standard: "if there is conflicting evidence or if different reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence, the issue is factual and should be submitted to the jury for resolution."

Key Takeaways for Public Adjusters

• Anti-concurrent causation clauses are not automatic bars to coverage. Even when a carrier invokes this provision, the question of what caused the damage is a factual issue for the jury. If the evidence supports that a covered event caused the loss, the anti-concurrent clause does not automatically defeat coverage.
• Water damage causation is a jury question. The distinction between a sudden water event (covered) and constant/repeated seepage (excluded) is exactly the type of factual dispute that juries decide. PAs should document the nature and timing of water events carefully to support the covered-cause theory.
• Directed verdicts for carriers are hard to obtain. If any conflicting evidence exists or reasonable inferences can be drawn in the policyholder's favor, a directed verdict for the carrier should be denied. This is a high bar for carriers to meet.
• Preserve the full factual record. The Third DCA noted that the appellate record was incomplete — only a portion of Blanco's testimony was included. This actually worked in the policyholder's favor, as the court could not find error on an incomplete record. PAs should ensure that all relevant documentation is part of the claim and litigation file.
• Citizens Property claims are winnable at trial. This case demonstrates that jury verdicts against Citizens can withstand appellate review on all issues, including anti-concurrent causation, damages evidence, jury instructions, and trial conduct.

How This Affects Your Practice

For PAs handling water damage claims, this decision provides strong authority that anti-concurrent causation clauses do not automatically bar coverage when there is evidence of a discrete, covered water event. When documenting water damage claims:

• Identify and document the specific water event (date, time, nature of the leak or flood)
• Distinguish between the acute event and any pre-existing conditions
• Photograph conditions immediately to capture the state of the property post-event
• Obtain expert opinions on causation if the carrier raises concurrent cause arguments

This evidence creates the factual record that supports the policyholder at every stage — from the initial claim through trial and appeal.

Practical Advice for Similar Cases

If the carrier argues concurrent excluded causes bar coverage for a covered water event:

• Document the specific covered event. Identify exactly when and how the water event occurred with photos, plumber reports, and witness statements.
• Distinguish acute damage from pre-existing conditions using moisture mapping, thermal imaging, and forensic plumbing analysis.
• Challenge the anti-concurrent causation argument. This case confirms these clauses are not automatic bars when evidence shows a covered event independently caused damage.
• Get expert opinions on causation from licensed plumbers, engineers, or restoration experts.
• Preserve the property for inspection. Do not remediate before carrier inspects except for emergency mitigation.

Conclusion

Need help with a similar claim? Submit your policy for a free review by our property damage attorneys, or call us at 833-657-4812.