MIGUEL BETANCOURT, ET AL.

v.

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 12, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0923 Lower Tribunal No. 20-11486 ________________

Miguel Betancourt, et al., Appellants,

vs.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge.

Giasi Law, P.A., Erin M. Berger and Melissa A. Giasi (Tampa), for appellants.

Williams, Leininger & Cosby, P.A., Carri S. Leininger and Maureen Martinez (North Palm Beach), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and SCALES and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

2

Miguel Betancourt and Ana Diaz (“Homeowners”) appeal a final summary judgment entered in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”). We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We reverse.

I.

The Homeowners purchased a residential insurance policy from Citizens for the period of October 10, 2018 to October 10, 2019. The policy covered direct physical loss and excluded any damages occurring prior to the policy’s inception. On July 9, 2019, while the policy was in effect, the Homeowners discovered water damage in several areas of the property, including the master bedroom. They contacted a public adjuster for an inspection and reported the loss to Citizens. Citizens hired an industrial hygienist who inspected the property and determined that the water damage resulted from a “historic leak.” As a result, Citizens denied the claim. The Homeowners then filed the underlying action for breach of contract. After filing its answer, Citizens moved for summary judgment arguing no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the water damage preexisted the policy period. In support, Citizens filed the affidavit of its hygienist, which provided “[t]he water-damaged bedroom west wall was attributed to a historic leak associated with a pre-existing shower

II.

“Our standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo.” Ottey v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 299 So. 3d 500, 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (quoting White v. Ferco Motors Corp., 260 So. 3d 388, 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)). “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a). “The court shall state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.” Id.

1 The Homeowners initially filed an affidavit from their plumber but later withdrew it, relying primarily on their engineer’s affidavit.

III.

On appeal, the Homeowners argue the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact relating to whether the property sustained water damage during the policy period. We agree as we find the Homeowners’ engineer’s affidavit was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact preventing summary judgment. The competing expert affidavit was appropriately based on the engineer’s experience in the field, evaluation of all relevant documentation

2 The affidavit explicitly stated that the engineer’s opinion was based on his physical inspection of the property, a review of claim documents, various photographs, reports from Citizens’ hygienist and the Homeowners’ adjuster and other relevant documentation. It therefore cannot be said that the engineer merely relied on the withdrawn affidavit of the plumber in concluding that the water damage could not have preexisted the policy period.³ Because we reverse on this issue, we need not address the other issues raised.