MIGUEL PENA MONTES DE OCA AND PATRICIA OJEDA
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.
Affirmed judgment for Citizens Property Insurance Corporation in homeowners' insurance coverage dispute, finding no reversible error in jury instructions regarding burden of proof for excluded losses.
An insured claiming under an all-risks policy must prove the property suffered a loss while the policy was in effect, then the insurer must prove the cause was excluded, and if an exception to the exclusion exists, the insured must demonstrate it.
[1] Under Florida law, an insured claiming under an all-risks policy bears the burden of proving the insured property suffered a loss while the policy was in effect, the insu…
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 intelligenceMiguel Pena Montes de Oca and Patricia Ojeda, homeowners insured by Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, appealed a jury trial judgment in favor o…
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 Miscarriage Of Justice Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
LINDSEY, J.
Appellants Miguel Pena Montes de Oca and Patricia Ojeda, the insured homeowners, appeal from a final judgment, following a jury trial, in favor of Appellee Citizens Property Insurance Corp. Based on the record before us, we find no reversible error and affirm. See Empire Pro
Restoration, Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 322 So. 3d 96, 98 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2021) (“‘[A]n insured claiming under an all-risks policy has the burden of proving that the insured property suffered a loss while the policy was in effect. The burden then shifts to the insurer to prove that the cause of the loss was excluded from coverage under the policy’s terms.’ [Kokhan v. Auto
Club Ins. Co. of Florida, 297 So. 3d 570, 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)] (alteration in original) (quoting Jones v. Federated Nat’l Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 936, 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)). ‘If there is an exception to the exclusion, the burden once again is placed on the insured to demonstrate the exception to the exclusion.’ E. Florida Hauling, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 913 So. 2d 673, 678 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) . . . .”). Given the specific facts in this case, any alleged error with the jury instructions is harmless. See § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2021) (“No judgment shall be set aside or reversed, or new trial granted by any court of the state in any cause, civil or criminal, on the ground of misdirection of the jury . . . unless in the opinion of the court to which application is made,
after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error
2 complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This section shall be liberally construed.”).
Affirmed.
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Escobar v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- E. Fla. Hauling, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 913 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Jones v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
- Viatcheslav Kokhan and Zoia Kokhan v. Auto Club Ins. Co. of Fla., 297 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)