JOSE BELLO AND JENNIE BELLO,
v.
GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
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 for the insurer, finding the trial court abused its discretion by denying the insured's motion for a continuance. The insured argued that crucial discovery requests remained outstanding and a motion to compel had not been heard.
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to continue the summary judgment hearing. The final summary judgment entered in favor of the insurer is reversed.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion for continuance of a summary judgment hearing when there are outstanding discovery requests and a pending motion t…
[2] A party's failure to respond to discovery requests or file objections, while seeking summary judgment, can support a finding that a continuance of the summary judgment he…
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“Under the specific circumstances presented, we agree that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to continue the summary judgment hearing, and reverse the final summary judgment.”
Establishes the court's finding of abuse of discretion and the reversal of the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe insured filed a property insurance action and served discovery requests. The insurer did not respond but instead sought appraisal. After an apprai…
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 Appraisal Award cases and more on FLexlaw
EMAS, C.J.
In this first-party property insurance action arising out of Hurricane Irma in 2017, Jose and Jennie Bello (the insured) seek review of a final summary judgment entered in favor of GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company (the insurer). The insured argues that the trial court erred in denying their motion for continuance of the summary judgment hearing, and in granting final summary judgment, because there were outstanding discovery requests that had not been responded to, as well as a pending motion to compel that outstanding discovery that had not yet been heard by the trial court. Contemporaneous with the filing of the complaint, the insured had served upon the insurer a request for production and interrogatories. The insurer did not provide any of the requested discovery nor file a response or objection to these discovery requests. Instead, three weeks after service of the complaint, the insurer sought appraisal, and the parties shortly thereafter stipulated to appraisal and to a stay of the proceedings pending issuance of an appraisal award. Soon after the appraisal award issued and the stay was lifted, the insurer moved for summary judgment. However, the insurer had still not provided any of the requested discovery or even filed a formal response or objection. The insured moved to compel the insurer’s compliance with the discovery requests, and also moved for a continuance of the summary judgment to allow adequate time for the discovery process following the lifting of the stay. Under the specific circumstances
presented, we agree that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to continue the summary judgment hearing, and reverse the final summary judgment. See Torres v. MK Tours, Inc., 10 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Erace v. Erace, 683 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); A&B Pipe and Supply Co. v. Turnberry Towers Corp., 500 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Scherr v. Andrews, 497 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Cullen v. Big Daddy's Lounges, Inc., 364 So. 2d 839, 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). We express no opinion on the merits of the summary judgment motion, or the ancillary question (relevant to the issue of entitlement to attorney’s fees under section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2017)) of whether suit was filed prematurely or was reasonably necessary to prompt the insurer to invoke arbitration. Travelers of Fla. v. Stormont, 43 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).1
If the insured is forced to file suit, and the insurer thereafter pays the award without the necessity of the trial court entering judgment, the confession of judgment doctrine applies. This doctrine applies where the insurer has denied benefits the insured was entitled to, forcing the insured to file suit, resulting in the insurer's change of heart and payment before
Reversed and remanded.
judgment. In that circumstance, the insured is entitled to an award of attorney's fees.
Travelers of Fla. v. Stormont, 43 So. 3d 941, 944-45 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- A & B Pipe & Supply Co. v. Turnberry Towers Corp. & Turnberry Corp., 500 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Scherr v. Andrews, 497 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Erace v. Erace, 683 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Travelers OF Fla. v. Stormont, 43 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Torres v. MK Tours, Inc., 10 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)