Gonzalez v. Citizens Property Ins. Corp., 273 So. 3d 1031

Background

Homeowners sued Citizens Property Insurance for interior water damage from a roof leak alleged to have resulted from a wind storm around July 17, 2013.
Citizens moved for summary judgment, submitting two affidavits (adjuster and roofing contractor) based on inspections 2 days and 9 months after the loss; both attributed the leak to age-related wear and tear of a 21-year-old roof.
Homeowners opposed with two affidavits from engineer Al Brizuela: the first conclusory (no inspection), the second based on an inspection performed after the damaged roof had been replaced and a report tying damage to wind events June 29–July 3, 2013.
Brizuela’s report relied on: (1) alleged observations of vulnerability consistent with wind damage despite inspecting post-replacement, and (2) wind gust data recorded over three miles away and two weeks before the claimed July 17 loss; he acknowledged limits in predicting wind at different locations/times.
Trial court granted summary judgment for Citizens, concluding Citizens’ affidavits met the movant’s burden and the Homeowners’ expert affidavits were conclusory, speculative, and insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.
Majority affirmed; dissent argued the conflicting expert affidavits created genuine factual disputes (credibility/weight) for the jury and summary judgment was improper.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Citizens met initial summary-judgment burden showing cause of roof leak was non-covered wear and tear	Gonzalez/Perez: Brizuela’s affidavits create genuine issue that wind uplift (covered peril) caused openings allowing water intrusion	Citizens: Adjuster/contractor affidavits show age-related deterioration caused the leak; no wind damage	Held: Citizens met its initial burden with admissible affidavits (summary judgment evidence sufficient)
Whether Homeowners’ expert affidavits created genuine issue of material fact	Gonzalez/Perez: Brizuela’s inspection and report identify wind damage indicators and local wind events supporting covered cause	Citizens: Brizuela’s opinions are conclusory, speculative, based on post-replacement inspection, and rely on unreliable remote wind data	Held: Brizuela’s affidavits were legally insufficient (conclusory/speculative); did not create a triable issue
Admissibility/weight of expert opinion based on post-replacement inspection and remote wind data	Gonzalez/Perez: Expert’s methodology supports inference of wind causation despite timing and data gaps	Citizens: Post-replacement observation impossible/unreliable; expert admitted limits of using distant wind data; methodology not trustworthy	Held: Court rejected the expert’s methodology as lacking factually-based reasoning and reliability; material issue not created
Whether the court improperly weighed evidence or assessed credibility on summary judgment	Gonzalez/Perez: Trial court and majority improperly weighed competing expert evidence; credibility is for jury	Citizens: Argued opposing affidavits insufficient as a matter of law so weighing unnecessary	Held: Majority concluded no issue of material fact; dissent disagreed, asserting the court impermissibly weighed credibility and should have remanded

Key Cases Cited

Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (summary judgment de novo review)
Harvey Bldg., Inc. v. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780 (movant meets burden; opponent must produce countervailing admissible evidence)
Div. of Admin. v. Samter, 393 So. 2d 1142 (expert opinion unacceptable if totally conclusory and lacking factually-based chain of reasoning)
Panzera v. O’Neal, 198 So. 3d 663 (opposing affidavits must identify admissible evidence creating genuine issue)
De La Osa v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 208 So. 3d 259 (courts may apply common-sense scrutiny to implausible factual assertions)
Alvarez v. All Star Boxing, Inc., 258 So. 3d 508 (expert opinion must be product of reliable principles and methods)