50 Fla. L. Weekly D2217a HELEN TERAN, et al., Appellants, v. ALEXANDER PILOTO, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D24-0963. L.T. Case No. 19-13322-CA-01. October 8, 2025. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge. Counsel: Morgan & Morgan, P.A., and R. Christopher Rodems (Orlando) and David L. Luck and Read More »
Articles
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Denial of coverage — Rescission of policy — Material misrepresentation on policy application — Garaging address — Summary judgment — Evidence — Hearsay — Examination under oath — Trial court properly determined that sworn examination under oath in which insured admitted that he misrepresented his address on policy application was admissible summary judgment evidence — Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer based on EUO where no evidence was offered disputing insured’s admission — EUO was not inadmissible summary judgment evidence simply because it was made out of court and offered for the truth of the matter asserted where insured’s admitted misrepresentation in EUO could be reduced to admissible form if insured were to testify directly at trial — Admission of EUO did not violate section 92.33, which provides that “[e]very person who shall take a written statement by any injured person with respect to any accident or with respect to any injury to person or property shall, at the time of taking such statement, furnish to the person making such statement a true and complete copy thereof” and further explains that “such a written statement is inadmissible if a copy was not provided to the declarant at the time it was made or if a copy was not provided when requested” — Insured’s EUO was not merely a statement taken by the insurer, but a sworn statement made by insured, with counsel present, transcribed by a court reporter and notary public; and plaintiff has cited no authority holding that such an EUO qualifies as written statement under statute — Even if statute applied, there were no allegations that insurer refused to furnish copy of statement to insured when requested
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2219a UNIVERSAL X RAYS, CORP., a/a/o Miguel Larosa-Ferrer, Appellant, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D24-0777. L.T. Case No. 21-26593-SP-05. October 8, 2025. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Miesha Darrough, Judge. Counsel: Doughlas H. Stein, P.A., and Douglas H. Stein, for appellant. Cole, Read More »
Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Conditions precedent — Residency — Waiver — Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of insurer where it was undisputed that insured did not reside at subject property when loss occurred as the underlying policy required — Reading policy and declaration as a whole, policy was not facially ambiguous based on a failure to identify subject property as the “residence premises” in declaration where policy lists property as the “insured location,” policy defines “insured location” to include “residence premises,” and definition of “residence premises” requires named insured to reside there — Insurer did not waive its right to deny insured’s claims — Insurer’s knowledge that insured had placed property in revocable living trust was not evidence that insurer accepted premiums with knowledge that insured no longer resided at property — Insurer’s initial payment of the claim did not waive its right to later deny coverage where provision at issue was a provision pertaining to coverage and insured did not learn of insured’s lack of residency until after initial payment
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2183a DAN PITTS, as Trustee for REVOCABLE TRUST OF EVELYN PITTS, Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and DRIRITE USA, INC., Appellees. 6th District. Case No. 6D2024-0575. L.T. Case No. 2020CA-003048-0000-00. October 3, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County. Jennifer A. Swenson, Judge. Counsel: Matthew Struble, Read More »
Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Venue — Forum non conveniens — Trial court erred by granting insurer’s motion to transfer venue from Hillsborough County to Polk County based on forum non conveniens — To overcome insured’s venue choice, insurer had to prove Polk County was more convenient forum — Motion to transfer should have been denied where, although lawsuit has obvious ties to Polk County as the county where the property and insureds are located, insurer presented no affidavits or other evidence to establish that it or any witnesses would incur substantial inconvenience or undue expense by litigating in Hillsborough County
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2146b KEVIN SIMEK and FALYNN SIMEK, f/k/a FALYNN SISK, Appellants, v. HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2024-2463. October 1, 2025. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Melissa Polo, Judge. Counsel: Sandford B. Kinne and Jeremy D. Read More »
Insurance — Homeowners — Property damage — Verdict — Damages — Remittitur — Trial court erred in denying insurer’s motion for remittitur where the only evidence supporting amount awarded by jury was public adjuster’s estimate which was excluded from evidence after public adjuster admitted that estimate included costs to match undamaged property, which was not covered by the policy — Remand with instructions to issue remittitur of damages to an amount consistent with competent damage estimates from both insurer’s field adjuster and homeowners’ plumbing expert
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2148b UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CALITZA DIAZ-TORRES, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D24-0552. L.T. Case No. 20-23463-CA-01. October 1, 2025. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Tanya Brinkley, Judge. Counsel: Link & Rockenbach, PA, and Kara Rockenbach Link and David A. Noel Read More »