The Court ruled in favor of Jeffrey and Julia Vasta, reversing the judgment due to an erroneous burden of proof imposed by the trial court’s verdict form, which was inconsistent with established Florida law for all-risks insurance policies (Hudson v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance, 450 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Mejia v. Citizens Property Insurance, 161 So. 3d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)). The Court emphasized that the Vastas only needed to prove a loss occurred during the policy period, while Universal bore the burden of proving any exclusions to coverage.
https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/2450173/opinion/Opinion_2023-1915.pdf