ALEXANDER KALLER, ET AL.
v.
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY 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.
When reviewing a directed verdict, appellate courts must evaluate evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and may not reweigh conflicting evidence; if conflicting evidence or different reasonable inferences exist, the issue is factual and must go to the jury.
[1] When reviewing an order granting a directed verdict, an appellate court must evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and may not reweigh…
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“appellate courts are required to evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and abstain from reweighing any conflicting or ambiguous evidence presented below”
Standard of review for directed verdict motions
Alexander Kaller and others appealed a directed verdict entered in favor of Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company in a case tried in Miami-D…
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 Insurance Coverage Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 30, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D24-2294
Lower Tribunal No. 21-12895-CA-01
Alexander Kaller, et al.,
Appellants,
VS.
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariana
Fajardo Orshan, Judge.
Mintz Truppman, P.A., and Timothy H. Crutchfield, for appellants.
Russo Lima Appellate Firm, P.A., and Elizabeth K. Russo and Paulo
R. Lima, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Am. Bridge Bahamas, Ltd., 193 So. 3d 902, 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (explaining that when reviewing an order on a motion for directed verdict, "[a]ppellate courts are required to evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and abstain from reweighing any conflicting or ambiguous evidence presented below"); Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Eghbal, 54 So. 3d 525, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“If there is conflicting evidence or if different reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence, then the issue is factual and should be submitted to the jury for resolution.").
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. Am. Bridge Bahamas, Ltd., 193 So. 3d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Mansour Eghbal, 54 So. 3d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)