CLARA GOMEZ
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
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.
An insured claiming under an all-risks policy must rebut an insurer's evidence of an exclusion with competent counterevidence; failure to do so results in summary judgment for the insurer.
[1] In an all-risks insurance claim, once the insurer produces competent evidence supporting an exclusion from coverage, the insured must come forward with counterevidence su…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“An insured claiming under an all-risks policy has the burden of proving that the insured property suffered a loss while the policy was in effect. The burden then shifts to the insurer to prove that the cause of the loss was excluded from coverage under the policy's terms.”
Court explaining the burden-shifting framework in all-risks insurance claims, citing Kokhan v. Auto Club Ins. Co. of Fla.
Clara Gomez claimed under a property insurance policy issued by Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The insurer presented record evidence that th…
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 Burden Of Proof In Insurance Coverage Disputes cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 4, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0328 Lower Tribunal No. 20-9152 ________________
Clara Gomez, Appellant,
vs.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge.
Giasi Law, P.A., and Melissa A. Giasi (Tampa) and Erin M. Berger (Tampa), for appellant.
Dean, Ringers, Morgan & Lawton, P.A., and Jessica C. Conner (Orlando), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.
BOKOR, J.
2
Although the insured met her initial burden to show that the insured property suffered a loss, she failed to provide any evidence to rebut the insurance company’s record evidence regarding the applicability of an exclusion from coverage for preexisting damage. See Kokhan v. Auto Club Ins. Co. of Fla., 297 So. 3d 570, 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“[A]n insured claiming under an all-risks policy has the burden of proving that the insured property suffered a loss while the policy was in effect. The burden then shifts to the insurer to prove that the cause of the loss was excluded from coverage under the policy's terms.” (quotation omitted)); Deshazior v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 305 So. 3d 752, 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Once the movant produces competent evidence in support of summary judgment, the opposing party must come forward with counterevidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue of material fact.” (quotations omitted)); Gonzalez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 273 So. 3d 1031, 1037–38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (affirming summary judgment for insurer where insured proffered only speculative and conclusory evidence insufficient to create genuine issue of material fact against insurer’s affidavits attesting that inspection failed to reveal damages covered by policy).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Yosvani Gonzalez and Yenisleidy Perez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 273 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
- Fla. DRY Solutions LLC v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 305 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Viatcheslav Kokhan and Zoia Kokhan v. Auto Club Ins. Co. of Fla., 297 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)