UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

TRACY KEALY

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed November 26, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D24-1127 Lower Tribunal No. 21-16374-CA-01

Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant,

vs.

Tracy Kealy, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge.

Link & Rockenbach, P.A., and Kara Rockenbach Link, and David A. Noel, (West Palm Beach), for appellant.

The Nation Law Firm, Mark A. Nation, and Paul W. Pritchard (Longwood), for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Triple R Paving, Inc. v. Broward Cnty., 774 So. 2d 50, 56-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“Trial courts are accorded broad discretion in their decisions to give a particular jury instruction, and any such decision will not be reversed on appeal absent prejudicial error."); Botte v. Pomeroy, 497 So. 2d 1275, 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (“While the content of the verdict form is normally within the trial court's discretion, we agree that ordinarily the verdict form should parallel the court's instruction on the law and not give undue prominence to any single issue in the case."); Miguel v. Richardson, 335 So. 2d 575, 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (“The jury should be submitted forms of verdict which permit it to arrive at a verdict or verdicts consistent with the claims of the plaintiff . . . and the defenses addressed thereto."); Jones v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 323 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (“In reaching a determination that a jury was misled or confused by a jury charge, the appellate court must inquire whether a jury might reasonably have been misled by the charge or instruction.”); Mejia v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 161 So. 3d 576, 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“[A]n insured claiming under an all-risks policy has the burden of proving that the insured property suffered a loss while the policy was in effect. The burden then shifts to the insurer to prove that the cause of the loss was excluded from coverage under the policy's terms."); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Barberan, 396 So. 3d 229, 230 (Fla. 2d

DCA 2024) (affirming the final judgment and holding that the trial court did not err in "instructing the jury that the [plaintiffs]' burden was to prove damage to their home during the policy period and, if they did so, then [the defendant] had the burden to prove that the loss was excluded from coverage”); Vasta v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 407 So. 3d 1256, 1260 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025) (holding that the burden of proof in claims arising under all-risks insurance policies under settled Florida law requires a verdict form to include a question asking whether the insured “had proven by the greater weight of the evidence that a loss had occurred during the policy's term" rather than improperly assigning "the burden of proving several separate points"). SCALES, C.J., and MILLER, J., concur. BOKOR, J., dissents.