MARCO HUERTAS and MIOZOTI HUERTAS v. AVATAR PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 21-0953

Background

Homeowners Marco and Miozoti Huertas suffered sudden water damage from a plumbing leak and filed a claim under their homeowners policy.
The policy required post-loss obligations including a sworn proof of loss (SPOL) and submission to an examination under oath (EUO).
Homeowners submitted a SPOL; insurer initially indicated coverage, later said the SPOL was insufficient, provided a replacement form, and demanded an EUO; the EUO occurred on April 4, 2017.
Insurer denied the claim citing Homeowners’ allegedly deficient SPOL and incomplete answers at the EUO; Homeowners sued for breach of contract.
At summary judgment, both parties filed motions; trial court granted insurer’s motion, stating Homeowners failed to file an affidavit in opposition, and entered final judgment for insurer.
The Fourth DCA reversed: it found insurer’s corporate-affidavit was legally insufficient and that genuine issues of material fact (substantial compliance with SPOL/EUO) remained for the jury.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Homeowners properly opposed insurer's summary judgment motion	Huertas filed supporting evidence (adjuster deposition, expert affidavit) with their SJ motion and thus adequately presented opposition	Insurer argued Homeowners failed to provide an affidavit in opposition at the SJ hearing and therefore did not oppose	Court: Homeowners sufficiently opposed; trial court erred to base SJ solely on absence of affidavit because evidence was before the court
Admissibility/sufficiency of insurer’s corporate representative affidavit under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(e)	Huertas argued the affidavit contained inadmissible hearsay, lacked personal knowledge, and merely restated legal conclusions	Insurer relied on the corporate-affidavit as basis to show no genuine issue of material fact	Court: Affidavit deficient (no personal knowledge, unsworn docs, conclusions); insufficient to carry insurer’s SJ burden
Whether Homeowners’ EUO noncompliance was material and barred recovery	Huertas attended the EUO and answered some questions; partial cooperation and explanations create a jury question on materiality	Insurer contended inability to answer key EUO questions meant meaningful noncompliance justifying denial	Court: EUO partial compliance raises factual issues for the jury—insurer cannot obtain SJ on this ground
Whether Homeowners’ SPOL substantially complied with policy such that coverage is barred	Huertas submitted a SPOL; whether it ‘‘substantially complied’’ is fact-dependent and thus for jury	Insurer contended the SPOL was deficient and untimely, defeating coverage	Court: Whether SPOL substantially complied is a question of fact that precludes summary judgment

Key Cases Cited

Restoration Constr., LLC v. SafePoint Ins. Co., 308 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (standard of review for summary judgment)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Figler Family Chiropractic, P.A., 189 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (nonmoving party must notify movant of evidence it intends to use at hearing)
Everett v. Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 310 So. 3d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (defective affidavit cannot support summary judgment)
Rodriguez v. Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 290 So. 3d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (similar rejection of insurer’s corporate-affidavit)
Himmel v. Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 257 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (EUO/SPOL substantial-compliance issues present jury questions)
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Figueroa, 218 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (whether a submitted SPOL substantially complies is a question of fact)
Lopez v. Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 313 So. 3d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (substantial compliance standard for post-loss obligations)
Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Milam, 177 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (definition/standard for substantial compliance)
Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966) (summary judgment burden principles)
Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1979) (summary judgment burden and inferences)