ANTONIO CRUZ
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.
Under a named perils insurance policy, the insured bears the burden to prove that a covered cause of loss caused the damage, and the insurer need not prove a policy exclusion as a defense.
[1] Under a named perils insurance policy, the insured bears the burden of proving that a loss resulted from a covered cause of loss, and the insurer is not required to prove…
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“Under a named perils insurance policy, [the insured] bore the burden to prove that wind, as a covered cause of loss under the policy, caused the damage to the buildings. . . . Because this is a named perils policy, if [the insured] fails to prove that the damage resulted from a named peril, the damage is simply not covered. Thus, [the insurer] is not required to prove a policy exclusion as the basis for its defense.”
Citation to Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Kings Creek S. Condo, Inc., discussing the allocation of burden under named perils policies
Antonio Cruz held a named perils property insurance policy with Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Cruz appealed a circuit court's summary judgm…
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 Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Kings Creek S. Condo, Inc.,
300 So. 3d 763, 765-66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Under a named perils insurance policy, [the insured] bore the burden to prove that wind, as a covered cause of loss under the policy, caused the damage to the buildings.
. . . Because this is a named perils policy, if [the insured] fails to prove that the damage resulted from a named peril, the damage is simply not covered.
Thus, [the insurer] is not required to prove a policy exclusion as the basis for its defense.”); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)(1)(A) (“A party asserting that a fact . .
. is genuinely disputed must support that assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents,
electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials[.]”); Rich v. Narog, 47 Fla. L.
Weekly D1933, 2022 WL 4360601, at *6 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 21, 2022) (determining that conclusory allegations in an affidavit without specific supporting facts lacked the probative value necessary to defeat summary judgment).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cruz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
-
Cruz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…tions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials[.]”); Rich v. Narog, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1933, 2022 WL 4360601, at *6 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 21, 2022) (determining that conclusory allegations in an affidavit without specific supporting facts lacked the probative value necessary to defeat summary judgment).…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Kings Creek S. Condo, Inc., 300 So. 3d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Cruz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)