CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
GERMAN ALVAREZ AND LUZ MARROQUIN, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appealed a jury verdict in favor of policyholders Alvarez and Marroquin on a sinkhole claim, arguing for directed verdict based on a statutory presumption of correctness. The policyholders cross-appealed the denial of prejudgment interest. The court affirmed both the judgment and the denial of prejudgment interest.
The court affirmed the jury verdict for the insureds and rejected Citizens' arguments regarding the statutory presumption and burden of proof. The court also affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest because the jury instructions did not establish a fixed date of loss prior to the verdict from which prejudgment interest could be calculated.
[1] A statutory presumption of correctness afforded to findings of engineering or geological professionals in sinkhole claims does not entitle an insurer to a directed verdic…
[2] An insurer does not bear the burden of proof concerning the exclusion of coverage for a sinkhole claim.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Citizens argues that it was entitled to a directed verdict due to a so-called statutory presumption of correctness, which was afforded to certain findings and recommendations of engineering or geological professionals in sinkhole claims under the law applicable in 2010.”
Sets forth Citizens' primary argument on appeal regarding the statutory presumption
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCitizens Property Insurance Corporation denied a sinkhole claim filed by German Alvarez and Luz Marroquin. The case went to trial where a jury determi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appeal From Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appeals a final judgment in favor of its insureds, German Alvarez and Luz Marro-quin (the Insureds), arising from a disputed sinkhole claim. The Insureds cross-appeal the denial of their request for prejudgment interest on the $75,918.06 judgment. We affirm both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
In its appeal, Citizens argues that it was entitled to a directed verdict due'to a so-called statutory presumption of correctness,- which was afforded to certain findings and recommendations of engineering or geological professionals in sinkhole claims under the law applicable in 2010. See § 627.7073(l)(c),: Fla. Stat. (2010). It also argues that it should not have had a burden of proof concerning the exclusion *46of coverage for this sinkhole claim. This court has recently rejected both arguments. See Citizens Prop, Ins. Corp. v. Munoz, 158 So.3d 671 (Fla. 2d-DCA 2014), petition for discretionary review pending, No. SC15-414 .(Fla. Mar. 13, 2015); Mejia v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 161 So.3d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). In. the event-that the supreme court accepts jurisdiction in Munoz, we recognize that the same issues are potentially dispositive in, this appeal.
In the Insureds’ cross-appeal, • they argue that they were entitled to- prejudgment interest from a point prior to the verdict. They rely on the line of cases beginning with Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985). Citizens claims that this case is controlled by our recent decision in Tower Hill Select insurance Co. v. McKee, 151 So.3d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). We are not convinced that these precedents are controlling.
In this case, the claim for prejudgment interest was first raised with the trial court after the jury had returned its verdict. The jury instructions and the verdict form asked the jury to determine the amount of loss by establishing the cost to repair the damage. Nothing in the record, including the expert testimony on the cost of repair, supports a theory that the jury was determining that cost for a date other than- the date of the verdict. ' There was dispute as to the cost of the repair, and the jury' resolved that dispute and liquidated the claim as of the date of the verdict. There- simply is no factual determination establishing an earlier “fixed date of loss” from which to calculate prejudgment interest. See Altanese Popkin Hughes Cove, Inc. v. Scharlin, 141 So.3d 743, 746-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). We do not .rule out the possibility that such & claim could be presented to a jury in a manner that might allow for prejudgment interest. It simply was not presented in such a manner in this case.
Affirmed.
CRENSHAW, J., and DAKAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Cabrera, 197 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…nt awarding the insureds the $160,000 in addition to $54,450.61 in prejudgment interest for a total of $214,450.61. But as in Amat, 198 So. 3d at 735, 41 Fla. L. Weekly at D450, 2016 WL 670189 at *4, and Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Alvarez, 198 So. 3d 45, 46, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D2428, D2429, 2015 WL 6575711 at *1 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 30, 2015), there is no indication in the record that the jury was determining the amount of the loss for a date other than the date of the verdict. Because there was no ear…
Authorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Mejia v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 161 So. 3d 576 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Tower Hill Select Ins. Co. v. McKEE, 151 So. 3d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Munoz, 158 So. 3d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Albanese Popkin Hughes Cove, Inc. v. Scharlin, 141 So. 3d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)