AMY KNIGHTS
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in rejecting a policyholder's proposed jury instructions and verdict form when determining that the correct instructions and form address the relevant legal issues in an insurance coverage dispute.
[1] An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to reject proposed jury instructions and verdict forms under an abuse of discretion standard.
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 intelligenceAmy Knights sued Citizens Property Insurance Corporation under her homeowner's insurance policy for damages from a water heater leak. Citizens denied …
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 Verdict Form cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed March 1, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-0026 Lower Tribunal No. 18-25630
________________
Amy Knights,
Appellant,
vs.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gina Beovides, Judge. Font & Nelson, PLLC, and Jose P. Font, and James C. Thomas (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant. Roig Lawyers, and Abbi Freifeld Carr, and Jeffrey R. Geldens (Deerfield Beach), for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellant Amy Knights appeals a final judgment entered in favor of Appellee Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Knight sued Citizens under her homeowner’s insurance policy seeking recovery for damages allegedly caused by a water heater leak. Citizens denied coverage on the basis that the leak was determined to be caused by constant, repeated leakage or seepage, a cause specifically excluded by the policy. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Citizens. Knights argues on appeal that the verdict was a product of error, either because the trial court erroneously rejected her proposed jury instructions and verdict form, or because the trial court used the wrong instruction and verdict form. We disagree. Finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court, we affirm. See St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Coconut Grove Bank, 106 So. 3d 452, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Gonzalez v. Rose, 752 So. 2d 39, 41-42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Sorrells v. Montesino, 2 So. 3d 297, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gonzalez v. Rose, 752 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- ST. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Coconut Grove Bank, 106 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Sorrells v. Montesino, 2 So. 3d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)