ZEIDA VAZQUEZ
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed a summary judgment in favor of an insurance company because the company's supporting evidence was improperly authenticated. The court relied on the insurance company's confession of error and established legal precedent regarding the authentication of evidence in summary judgment motions.
Yes, the summary judgment was improperly entered. The court held that unauthenticated documents cannot be considered as competent evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment.
[1] A document attached to a motion for summary judgment or an affidavit that is not otherwise authenticated is not competent evidence.
[2] A Florida court may not consider an unauthenticated document in ruling on a motion for summary judgment.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To a significant extent, [Citizens’] supporting materials were improperly authenticated”
This quote establishes the primary reason for the court's decision to reverse.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZeida Vazquez appealed a final summary judgment entered against her in a property insurance dispute. The insurance company, Citizens Property Insuranc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Admissibility Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. UPON CONFESSION OF ERROR
Appellant, Zeida Vazquez, challenges a final summary judgment entered below in favor of appellee, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, in her first-party property insurance dispute.
Because “[t]o a significant extent, [Citizens’] supporting materials were improperly authenticated,” based upon our independent review of the record and Citizens’ commendable confession of error, we hereby reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Larroque v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla., 972 So. 2d 981, 982 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (citations omitted); see Gidwani v. Roberts, 248 So. 3d 203, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Because ‘only competent evidence may be considered by the court in ruling upon a motion for summary judgment,’ a document attached to a motion for summary judgment or a document attached to an affidavit that is not otherwise authenticated is not competent evidence.”) (quoting Daeda v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 698 So. 2d 617, 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)); Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So. 2d 886, 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“A Florida court may not consider an unauthenticated document in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, even where it appears that the such document, if properly authenticated, may have been dispositive.”) (citation omitted); see also Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 707, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“[A] trial court, in passing upon a motion for summary judgment, is bound by the procedural strictures inherent in Fl[orida] R[ule of] Civ[il] P[rocedure] 1.510.”); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) (“The [summary judgment] motion . . . must specifically identify any affidavits, answers to interrogatories, admissions, depositions, and other materials as would be admissible in evidence (‘summary judgment evidence’) on which the movant relies.”); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(e) (“Sworn or certified copies of all documents or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit must be attached thereto or served therewith.”).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Daeda v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc., 698 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Gidwani v. Roberts, 248 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Amalia Larroque v. Mercury Ins. Co. OF Fla. & Disc. Ins. Ctr. Two, Inc., 972 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)