March 26, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy Insurance — Property — Citizens Property Insurance Corporation — Error to enter final summary judgment in favor of Citizens where, to significant extent, Citizens’ supporting materials were improperly authenticated 45 Fla. L. Weekly D612a Insurance — Property — Citizens Property Insurance Corporation — Error to enter final summary judgment in favor of Citizens where, to significant extent, Citizens’ supporting materials were improperly authenticated ZEIDA VAZQUEZ, Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D18-2601. L.T. Case No. 17-6470. March 18, 2020. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rodolfo A. Ruiz, Judge. Counsel: Giasi Law, P.A., and Melissa A. Giasi, and Erin M. Berger (Tampa), for appellant. Franklin Legal Group, PA, and Jonathan D. Franklin, for appellee. (Before SALTER, SCALES, and MILLER. JJ.) UPON CONFESSION OF ERROR(PER CURIAM.) Appellant, Zeida Vazquez, challenges a final summary judgment entered below in favor of appellee, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, in her first-party property insurance dispute. Because “[t]o a significant extent, [Citizens’] supporting materials were improperly authenticated,” based upon our independent review of the record and Citizens’ commendable confession of error, we hereby reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Larroque v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla., 972 So. 2d 981, 982 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (citations omitted); see Gidwani v. Roberts, 248 So. 3d 203, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Because ‘only competent evidence may be considered by the court in ruling upon a motion for summary judgment,’ a document attached to a motion for summary judgment or a document attached to an affidavit that is not otherwise authenticated is not competent evidence.”) (quoting Daeda v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 698 So. 2d 617, 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)); Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So. 2d 886, 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“A Florida court may not consider an unauthenticated document in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, even where it appears that the such document, if properly authenticated, may have been dispositive.”) (citation omitted); see also Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 707, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“[A] trial court, in passing upon a motion for summary judgment, is bound by the procedural strictures inherent in Fl[orida] R[ule of] Civ[il] P[rocedure] 1.510.”); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) (“The [summary judgment] motion . . . must specifically identify any affidavits, answers to interrogatories, admissions, depositions, and other materials as would be admissible in evidence (‘summary judgment evidence’) on which the movant relies.”); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(e) (“Sworn or certified copies of all documents or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit must be attached thereto or served therewith.”). Reversed and remanded. * * *
