ROBERT SORENSEN
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.
Arguments raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing are unpreserved and cannot be considered on appeal.
[1] Arguments raised for the first time in a motion for rehearing are unpreserved and may not be considered on appeal.
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“[A]s a general rule, new and different arguments untimely raised for the first time in motions for rehearing which were denied are unpreserved.”
The court cited Melrose Ventures, LLC v. Uptempo Mktg. Corp. to establish the standard for preservation of arguments on appeal.
Robert Sorensen appealed a circuit court decision in a property insurance dispute against Citizens Property Insurance Corporation involving coverage a…
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 Amount Of Loss Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 1, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-0082 Lower Tribunal No. 20-23032-CA-01
Robert Sorensen, Appellant,
VS.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge.
Herrera Law, PLLC, and Christopher Herrera, for appellant.
De Novo, and Kathryn L. Ender, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Melrose Ventures, LLC v. Uptempo Mktg. Corp., 418 So. 3d 217, 220 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (“[A]s a general rule, new and different arguments untimely raised for the first time in motions for rehearing which were denied are unpreserved.” (citing Ray Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 406 So. 3d 1086, 1088 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025))); see also Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wellington Place HOA, Inc., 373 So. 3d 1, 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (holding the insured's claim was ripe for appraisal because the insurer had admitted coverage for the initial claim, and the claim remained open for adjustment when the insured reported additional damage pursuant to the policy); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. River Manor Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 125 So. 3d 846, 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding Citizen's contention that the appraisers “improperly duplicated itemized losses” was an “amount of loss” issue “solely within the province of the appraisers”).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. River Manor Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 125 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Melrose Ventures, LLC v. Uptempo Mktg. Corp., 418 So. 3d 217 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)
- Heritage Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wellington Place HOA, Inc., 373 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)