Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

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.

* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982