RAQUEL QUESADA
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.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The court found that the insured failed to present evidence demonstrating that the damages were caused by a covered peril, rather than an excluded event, and could not create a jury issue by contradicting prior deposition testimony.
No, the trial court did not err. The insured failed to present evidence that the damages were caused by a covered peril and could not create a jury issue by contradicting her prior deposition testimony.
[1] In an insurance coverage dispute, an insured cannot rely on conclusory affidavits or contradictory statements to create a triable issue of fact when opposing summary judg…
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 party when met by a motion for summary judgment should not be permitted by his [or her] own affidavit, or by that of another, to baldly repudiate his [or her] previous deposition so as to create a jury issue”
This quote explains the court's reasoning that an insured cannot create a genuine issue of material fact by contradicting their prior sworn testimony.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe insured, Raquel Quesada, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The specifics of the damages and…
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 Causation Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Deshazior v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 305 So. 3d 752, 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (affirming summary judgment for insurer where insured presented no evidence as to cause of damages and thus failed to show that damages were not caused by excluded event and explaining that “a party when met by a motion for summary judgment should not be permitted by his [or her] own affidavit, or by that of another, to baldly repudiate his [or her] previous deposition so as to create a jury issue” (citation omitted)); see also Archer v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 313 So. 3d 645, 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (affirming summary judgment for insurer where insurer's field adjuster did not see any peril-created openings and insured offered only conclusory affidavits in opposition); Empire Pro Restoration, Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 322 So. 3d 96, 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (affirming summary judgment in favor of insurer where insured did not establish that roof opening was caused by covered peril and admitted not knowing what caused roof to leak); Fla. Windstorm Underwriting v. Gajwani, 934 So. 2d 501, 505–06 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (affirming summary judgment for insurer under similar policy where insureds “conceded that they could not offer any evidence of entry through openings in the roof or walls caused by Hurricane Irene").
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Florida Windstorm Underwriting v. Anil Gajwani, 934 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Fla. DRY Solutions LLC v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 305 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Archer v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 313 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)