Tower Hill v. Newell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D14-1363 DOUGLAS NEWELL AND RENEE NEWELL, Appellees. ________________________________/ Opinion filed January 22, 2016 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Donald E. Grincewicz, Judge. Kara Berard Rockenbach and David A. Noel, of Methe & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant. Mark A. Nation and Paul W. Pritchard, of The Nation Law Firm, Longwood, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Munoz, 158 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that sinkhole endorsement to “all risks” homeowners insurance policy did not change underlying policy into “named perils” policy, and thus, insureds had burden of establishing that loss occurred during policy period, and if insured’s met that burden, insurer then had burden of proving that loss resulted from excluded cause), review denied, SC15-414 (Fla. 2015); Mejia v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 161 So. 3d 576, 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (explaining that fact that insured’s sinkhole coverage was provided in endorsement to underlying homeowner’s insurance policy did not change “all risks” nature of underlying policy; endorsement merely narrowed policy’s earth movement exclusion; insurer had burden of proof to show that cause of property loss was excluded from coverage under policy’s terms). TORPY and EVANDER, JJ. concur. BERGER, J., concurs in result only. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
