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
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

March 6, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Property damage — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether property sustained physical damage consistent with reported loss and the cause of any damage

45 Fla. L. Weekly D510d

Insurance — Property damage — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether property sustained physical damage consistent with reported loss and the cause of any damage

SUZZETTE OTTEY, Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D18-2537. L.T. Case No. 14-4310. Opinion filed March 4, 2020. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge. Counsel: Giasi Law, P.A., and Melissa A. Giasi (Tampa), for appellant. Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, P.A., and Jessica C. Conner (Orlando), for appellee.

(Before LOGUE, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.)

(PER CURIAM.) Suzzette Ottey appeals an order granting summary judgment in favor of her insurer, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Ottey argues that Citizens failed to meet its burden of proving that the damage to her property was excluded from coverage under her insurance policy and that there are triable issues of fact regarding the cause of damage to the property. We agree that issues of material fact preclude summary judgment and reverse the order granting final summary judgment.

“Our standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo.” White v. Ferco Motors Corp., 260 So. 3d 388, 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). “We review the record to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment.” Id. (citing Collections, USA, Inc. v. City of Homestead, 816 So. 2d 1225, 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)). A careful review of the appellate record reveals genuine issues of material fact as to: (1) whether Ottey’s property sustained physical damage consistent with the reported loss; and (2) what caused that damage, if any. Ottey’s deposition testimony regarding these issues is sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact precluding summary judgment. Thus, we reverse the entry of summary judgment for Citizens and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Appeal from order awarding attorney’s fees and costs and attorney’s fees for fees incurred in litigating amount of fees reversed in light of appellate court’s reversal of substantive portion of summary judgment on which awards were based and remand with instructions — Reversal is without prejudice to filing new appeal after trial court has concluded its labor
  • Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were factual issues as to insured’s compliance with post-loss obligations and any ensuing prejudice — Remand for further proceedings
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Assignee’s breach of contract action against insurer — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor after paying post-lawsuit appraisal award within time limit required by the policy where appraisal process confirmed that insurer had wrongly denied paying assignee a specified amount of benefits under the policy — Payment of postsuit appraisal award did not render case moot — Remand for further proceedings on assignee’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs
  • Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Failure to state on the record the reasons for granting motion for summary judgment, as required by amended rule — Remand to allow court an opportunity to state reasons for its decision “with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review”
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Presuit demand letter — Presuit demand letter did not comply with statute where amount claimed to be due was not sufficiently precise — Although letter asked insurer to advise plaintiff if demand letter was defective in any way, nothing in language of section 627.736 requires an insurer to give notice to the insured or an assignee that a demand letter is defective

Blog Archives

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. Abbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982