127 So. 3d 536
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Vander Voorts stored furniture with Weston Moving & Storage from July 2009 to April 2010.
- Vander Voorts purchased Universal homeowners insurance March 15, 2010, with a policy period March 15, 2010–March 15, 2011.
- Damage and some items missing were observed when furniture was delivered April 10, 2010.
- Universal denied the claim, arguing loss did not occur during the policy period.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Universal; court reversed on appeal due to factual disputes.
- Affidavits from Weston employees raised issues about the timing and handling of the furniture, creating a material factual dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the insured prove loss occurred within the policy period? | Vander Voorts: loss occurred during policy period; chain of custody shows damage during return. | Universal: loss could have occurred before March 15, 2010; burden on insured to prove timing. | No; material fact disputed; reasonable inference supports policy-period loss. |
| Are Weston affidavits sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact? | Affidavits show personal knowledge of custody and condition; sympathetic inferences. | Affidavits rely on belief rather than knowledge. | Affidavits sufficient; create genuine issue of material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. Traxxas Corp., 78 So.3d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (disputed inference for identity/condition can defeat summary judgment)
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla.2000) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment; view record in light favoring nonmovant)
- Myrick v. St. Catherine Laboure Manor, Inc., 529 So.2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (affidavit admissible if personal knowledge shown on face)
- Farrington v. State, 884 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (equivocal identification may be admissible; credibility for jury)
- Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966) (burden on moving party to show no material fact; draw inferences for nonmovant)
- Albelo v. S. Bell, 682 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (summary-judgment burden and inference rules)
- Schooner Oaks Ltd. Co. v. Schooner Oaks Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 776 So.2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (must draw every inference in favor of nonmoving party)
- Cont’l Concrete, Inc. v. Lakes at La Paz III Ltd. P’ship, 758 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (evidence permitting different reasonable inferences precludes summary judgment)