NAOMI DESINOR, ET AL.
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
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.
Summary judgment is improper when the trial court makes credibility determinations about expert testimony and conflicting expert opinions create genuine issues of material fact regarding the cause of loss.
[1] On summary judgment, credibility determinations regarding expert witness testimony and the weighing of conflicting expert opinions are jury functions, and such determinat…
[2] Conflicting expert affidavits regarding the cause of loss create sufficient triable issues of material fact to preclude summary judgment in an insurance coverage dispute.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict.”
Court explaining why trial court erred in making credibility determinations about expert witness testimony
Naomi Desinor and David A. Joseph filed an insurance claim with Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The trial court granted summary judgment in f…
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 Summary Judgment Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 3, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1926 Lower Tribunal No. 21-27743 ________________
Naomi Desinor, et al., Appellants,
vs.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.
Wasson & Associates, Chartered, and Annabel C. Majewski, for appellants.
Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., and Lara J. Edelstein and Drew W. Peeler (Boca Raton), for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Naomi Desinor and David A. Joseph (the “Insureds”),
2 appeal a final judgment rendered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Upon careful de novo review of the record, we determine that the trial court made improper credibility determinations regarding the Insureds’ expert witness’ testimony. See Vega v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 326 So. 3d 176, 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“[Plaintiff's] Expert’s conclusions based on his experience and review of the record in combination with [Plaintiff's] deposition testimony . . . were sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Thus, summary judgment was inappropriate at this juncture of the proceedings.”); Ortega v. JW Marriott Inv., LLC, 405 So. 3d 473, 477–78 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict.” (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986))). Further, the record evidence presents sufficient factual dispute to conclude that the Insureds met their burden to show the existence of a triable issue as to the cause of loss, at least as to some of their damages. See Frederick v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 314 So. 3d 539, 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (finding conflicting expert affidavits as to cause of loss created
3 sufficient triable issues precluding summary judgment); Garcia v. First Cmty. Ins. Co., 241 So. 3d 254, 257−58 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (holding summary judgment inappropriate where findings of insurer’s expert and conclusions of insured's expert were “clearly at odds”); see also Ortega v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 257 So. 3d 1171, 1173 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (finding homeowner's counterevidence sufficient to create disputed issues of material fact). Accordingly, we reverse and remand. Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986)
- Garcia v. First Cmty. Ins. Co., 241 So. 3d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Ortega v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 257 So. 3d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Frederick v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 314 So. 3d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Ortega v. JW Marriott Inv., LLC, 405 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
- Vega v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 326 So. 3d 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)