CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
OSVALDO MAYTIN, APPELLEE
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.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation's appeal of an order compelling appraisal is reversed because a factual dispute exists regarding whether the insured complied with post-loss conditions precedent to invoking the appraisal clause.
An insurer may preclude appraisal by establishing that the insured failed to comply with post-loss conditions, but when the insured provides some degree of cooperation or explanation for noncompliance, a fact question is presented requiring an evidentiary hearing.
[1] When an insured provides some degree of cooperation or explanation for noncompliance with post-loss conditions in an insurance policy, a factual dispute exists regarding…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[W]here the 'insured cooperates to some degree or provides an explanation for its noncompliance, a fact question is presented' regarding the necessity or sufficiency of compliance.... Whether appellees' compliance with the policy terms was necessary or sufficient is a dispute of fact.”
Court citing Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori regarding when post-loss condition compliance becomes a factual question.
Osvaldo Maytin filed suit against Citizens for breach of contract on his homeowners' insurance policy and moved to compel appraisal. Citizens answered…
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 Post-Loss Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”) appeals a non-final order granting Osvaldo Maytin’s motion to compel appraisal of a claim under his homeowners’ insurance policy with Citizens. After Maytin filed suit for breach of contract against Citizens, he moved to compel appraisal. Citizens answered the complaint and asserted that Maytin failed to comply with post-loss conditions and prevented Citizens from fully inspecting his property, thereby, precluding the invocation of the appraisal clause under the insurance policy.
On the authority of Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Galeria Villas Condominium Association, 48 So.3d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), we reverse the trial court’s grant of the motion to compel appraisal and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine if Maytin complied with the post-loss conditions under the policy. See First Home Ins. Co. v. Fleurimond, 36 So.3d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); see also Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So.3d 129, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“[W]here the ‘insured cooperates to some degree or provides an explanation for its noncompliance, a fact question is presented’ regarding the necessity or sufficiency of compliance.... Whether appellees’ compliance with the policy terms was necessary or sufficient is a dispute of fact.”) (citation omitted); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Romay, 744 So.2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mango Hill Condo. Ass'n 12 Inc., 54 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…(confirming that where an insured cooperates to some degree or explains non-compliance with a policy’s post-loss requirements, a fact question is presented which should be resolved on an evidentiary hearing); Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. Maytin, 51 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (confirming the necessity of an evidentiary hearing when a dispute arises as to whether an insured’s compliance satisfies policy post-lost requirements).1 Reversed and remanded. . Should the court below determine that this matte…
-
People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Socarras, 276 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…cepcion, 83 So. 3d 908, 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citing Citizens Prop. Ins. v. Gutierrez, 59 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Citizens Prop. Ins. v. Mango Hill Condo. Ass'n 12 Inc., 54 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Maytin, 51 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)).”); Am. Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 276 So. 3d 905, 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[W]hile the interpretation of the terms of an insurance contract normally presents an issue of law, the question of whether certain actions constitut…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Cecilio Gutierrez and Noemi Gutierrez, 59 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…trial court erred in both granting the motion to compel appraisal and in failing to conduct the requested evidentiary hearing concerning the insureds’ compliance with the policy’s post-loss conditions. See Citizens Prop. [*179] Ins. Corp. v. Maytin, 51 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding that the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the insured complied with the policy’s post-loss conditions); Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So. 3d 129, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“[W…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Juan and Julia Romay, 744 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Galeria Villas Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 48 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So. 3d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Graham v. State, 28 So. 3d 129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- First Home Ins. Co. v. Fleurimond, 36 So. 3d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)