241 So. 3d 254
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Garcia owned a Miami home insured by First Community; she discovered interior water damage on March 29, 2014, allegedly from a roof leak and submitted a claim.
- First Community’s forensic engineer (Acosta) inspected in June 2014 and concluded water intrusion resulted from age-related deterioration, tree abrasion, and construction defects (nail placement), i.e., excluded wear-and-tear/defect causes.
- Garcia’s engineer (Brizuela) inspected in March 2017 and opined the damage was caused by a one-time wind/hail event that uplifted shingles and allowed rain ingress (a covered occurrence).
- First Community denied the claim and moved for summary judgment, arguing exclusion applies and there was no opening caused by a covered peril. The trial court granted summary judgment for First Community.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the conflicting expert opinions created a genuine issue of material fact about the cause of loss and that credibility/weight issues cannot be resolved on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists as to cause of loss | Garcia: competing expert shows storm (wind/hail) opening -> covered loss | First Community: expert shows age/wear/defect -> excluded; no covered opening | Reversed: conflicting expert reports create genuine issue; summary judgment improper |
| Whether trial court properly rejected later inspection evidence as untimely | Garcia: timing affects weight, not admissibility; later inspection still probative | First Community: Brizuela’s 3-year-later inspection is less reliable than earlier inspection | Rejected: timing goes to credibility/weight, which cannot be resolved on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985) (conflicting evidence on material facts must be submitted to jury)
- Sierra v. Shevin, 767 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (court cannot weigh evidence or judge credibility on summary judgment)
- Juno Indus., Inc. v. Heery Int’l, 646 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (trial court may not consider weight of conflicting evidence or witness credibility on summary judgment)
- Tropical Glass & Const. Co. v. Gitlin, 13 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (summary judgment proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists)