386 So.3d 646
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2024Background
- Michel Lassiter owned a home in Largo, Florida, and had an insurance policy with Citizens Property Insurance.
- In April 2020, Lassiter claimed her roof was damaged by wind and hail, causing leaks and interior water damage.
- Citizens denied the claim, asserting the damage was due to wear and tear, not covered by the policy, and cited exclusions for rain damage unless a covered peril creates an opening.
- Lassiter filed a breach of contract lawsuit. Both parties submitted affidavits and deposition testimony concerning the cause of the damage and the existence of roof openings.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Citizens, finding no material dispute as to the cause of loss, and denied reconsideration.
- On appeal, the Second District reviewed whether the trial court improperly weighed evidence in granting summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of Proof/Cause of Damage | Lassiter argued she showed roof damage by covered perils; thus, Citizens had to show exclusion. | Citizens argued Lassiter failed to prove a covered peril caused a roof opening allowing water intrusion. | The court held there were genuine factual disputes on causation, making summary judgment improper. |
| Sufficiency of Evidence (Openings) | Lassiter asserted that expert and witness evidence supported the existence of peril-created roof openings. | Citizens maintained there was no evidence of specific roof openings caused by a covered peril. | The court found competing affidavits created a genuine dispute as to material fact. |
| Weighing of Evidence at Summary Judgment | Lassiter claimed the trial court improperly disregarded evidence supporting her claim. | Citizens defended the trial court's reliance on the evidence submitted. | The court held the trial judge cannot weigh conflicting evidence or assess credibility at summary judgment. |
| Admissibility of Affidavits | Lassiter challenged Citizens’ affidavit as hearsay (but not fully briefed on appeal). | Citizens argued Lassiter’s expert's affidavit was speculative and not based on personal inspection. | The court declined to reach hearsay issues but found the expert's affidavit created a triable dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (sets out the federal summary judgment standard—whether evidence allows a reasonable jury to rule for the non-movant)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (explains burden-shifting on summary judgment)
- Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (de novo review of summary judgment orders)
- Bernhardt v. Halikoytakis, 95 So. 3d 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (prohibits weighing evidence or making credibility determinations at summary judgment)
- Gonzalez v. Citizens Property Insurance, 273 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (expert testimony insufficient when not based on personal observation or inspection)