50 Fla. L. Weekly D2499e

UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. EDUARDO ANDRES HERNANDEZ, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D24-461. L.T. Case No. 20-2163-CA-01. November 19, 2025. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Link & Rockenbach, P.A., and Kara Rockenbach Link and David A. Noel (West Palm Beach), for appellant. Alonso & Perez, LLP and Rafael F. Alonso, for appellees.

(Before EMAS, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.)

(GORDO, J.) In this first-party property insurance dispute, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”) appeals an amended final summary judgment entered in favor of Eduardo Andres Hernandez, Ana Hernandez and Olga Pacheco (“Homeowners”). We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I.

On October 17, 2019, the Homeowners’ residential property, insured by Universal, sustained water damage due to a plumbing system failure. The Homeowners retained a plumbing company to perform emergency temporary repairs. On October 22, 2019, they reported the loss to Universal.

On October 27, 2019, Universal sent a letter to the Homeowners requesting they fulfill their post-loss obligations by providing a sworn proof of loss, a detailed repair estimate, photographs, plumbing videos and a recorded statement. In January 2020, counsel for the Homeowners provided Universal with plumbing invoices, photographs, a sworn proof of loss and a repair estimate. Counsel also stated they would reach out to the plumber to obtain the plumbing video and asked for available dates to schedule the recorded statement.

On January 29, 2020, one week after providing the repair estimate, the Homeowners filed the underlying action against Universal for breach of contract.¹ Universal filed an answer asserting affirmative defenses, alleging the Homeowners failed to comply with their contractually mandated post-loss obligations by not providing all requested documents.

The Homeowners moved for summary judgment on coverage, asserting they had provided Universal with all requested documentation. In support, they submitted several exhibits, including the affidavit of Eduardo Hernandez, who attested that, before filing suit, all requested materials — such as the proof of loss, damage estimate, photographs, plumbing video and repair invoices — had been provided to Universal.

Universal opposed the motion, arguing the Homeowners failed to substantially comply with their post-loss obligations and that Universal was prejudiced by their noncompliance. In support, Universal submitted exhibits including the affidavit of its corporate representative, Jimmy Casas, who attested that Universal never received certain requested items — such as the plumbing video and recorded statement — and was therefore unable to complete its investigation or issue a coverage determination.

Following a hearing, the trial court granted the Homeowners’ motion for summary judgment on coverage, finding no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Universal moved for rehearing, which the trial court denied. This appeal followed.

II.

“Our standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo.” Betancourt v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 406 So. 3d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (quoting Ottey v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 299 So. 3d 500, 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)). “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a)).

III.

Universal argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether the Homeowners substantially complied with their post-loss obligations. We agree.

Both parties submitted competing affidavits regarding whether the Homeowners substantially complied with their post-loss obligations. The Homeowners asserted they provided all requested materials, including the plumbing video. While there was evidence in the record of emails transmitting certain documents, there was no attachment or mention of providing the plumbing video. In fact, in one email, the Homeowners’ counsel stated they would contact the plumber to obtain the video but filed the underlying action shortly thereafter. There is no evidence in the record that the plumbing video was ever received by Universal. Universal maintained that it never received either the plumbing video or the recorded statement and that it repeatedly requested both from the Homeowners. Because Universal’s evidence created a genuine dispute as to both substantial compliance with post-loss obligations and the existence of prejudice, we find the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the Homeowners as a matter of law. See Chowdhury v. BankUnited, N.A., 366 So. 3d 1130, 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“Our new summary judgment standard mirrors the standard for a directed verdict such that the inquiry focuses on ‘whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.’ ” (quoting In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 192 (Fla. 2020))); Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Horne, 314 So. 3d 688, 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“When an insurer has alleged, as an affirmative defense to coverage, and thereafter has subsequently established, that an insured has failed to substantially comply with a contractually mandated post-loss obligation, prejudice to the insurer from the insured’s material breach is presumed, and the burden then shifts to the insured to show that any breach of post-loss obligations did not prejudice the insurer.” (quoting Am. Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 276 So. 3d 905, 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019))); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Figueroa, 218 So. 3d 886, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“Whether an insured substantially complied with policy obligations is a question of fact. Whether an insurer is prejudiced by an insured’s untimely compliance is also a question of fact.”); Daniel’s Tree Serv., Inc. v. Nat’l Core Servs. Corp., 379 So. 3d 524, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“Nor could the circuit court have resolved those issues on summary judgment, given that the competing affidavits plainly created genuine issues of material fact on those issues.”); Finell v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc., 383 So. 3d 836, 837-39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (“We find that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment because an issue of fact remains regarding whether the insured cooperated . . . . Thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”).

Accordingly, we reverse the amended final summary judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

__________________

¹The Homeowners subsequently filed their operative amended complaint.

* * *