ALEXANDER J. MATOS, ET AL.
v.
SAFEPOINT 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.
This appeal concerns whether SafePoint Insurance Company was properly granted summary judgment in a dispute with policyholders Alexander J. Matos and others. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the insurer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.
Summary judgment was properly granted for SafePoint Insurance Company. The court affirmed based on established summary judgment standards requiring that judgment be proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
“Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment that governed the 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 case involves a claim against SafePoint Insurance Company by policyholders Matos and others. The specific factual circumstances underlying the dis…
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 Presumption Of Prejudice To Insurer cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed November 26, 2025.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D24-1549
Lower Tribunal No. 22-837-CA-01 Alexander J. Matos, et al.,
Appellants,
VS.
SafePoint Insurance Company, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig, Judge.
Shield Law Group of Florida, LLC, and Jamie Alvarez (Davie), for appellants.
Bickford & Chidnese, LLP, and Patrick M, Chidnese and Frieda C. Lindroth (Tampa), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) (“Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."); Navarro v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 353 So. 3d 1276, 1279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“If the notice was untimely, then prejudice to the insurer is presumed." (quoting LoBello v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 152 So. 3d 595, 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014))); De La Rosa v. Fla. Peninsula Ins. Co., 246 So. 3d 438, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“[T]he record forecloses the insured's ability to overcome the prejudice to the insurer in evaluating the extent of the damage because of the delay in making the claim.").
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LoBELLO v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 152 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Yohandy Varona v. SafePoint Ins. Co., 353 So. 3d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)