ADALBERTO VEGA
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 was properly granted to the insurance company because the policy language was clear and unambiguous and required interpretation according to its plain meaning.
[1] When the language of an insurance policy is clear and unambiguous, the court must interpret it according to its plain meaning, and summary judgment is appropriate if no g…
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“When the language of an insurance policy is clear and unambiguous, a court must interpret it according to its plain meaning, giving effect to the policy as it was written.”
E. Florida Hauling, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 913 So. 2d 673, 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
Adalberto Vega brought an action against Citizens Property Insurance Corporation regarding an insurance policy dispute. The trial court granted summar…
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 Policy Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) (“Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”); In re Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martinez v. City of Miami, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2385 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…gs of fact in the final judgment, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule.”); Hardison v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2385 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 27, 2024); see also Arguelles v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 278 So. 3d 108, 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[W]e review a denial of a motion for rehearing under an abuse of discretion standard.”); Mane FL Corp. v. Beckman, 355 So. 3d 418, 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (“There was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determinatio…
-
Pride Clean Restoration Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 331 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…claim was subject to coverage. The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of Lloyd’s, and the instant appeal ensued. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. See Arguelles v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 278 So. 3d 108, 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Similarly, the interpretation of an insurance contract presents a pure legal issue subject to de novo review. Id. ANALYSIS Several guiding principles inform our analysis. It is axiomatic that “[w]here the language in an…
-
Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez-Perez (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- Wash. Nat'l Ins. Corp. v. Sydelle Ruderman, 117 So. 3d 943 (Fla. 2013)
- Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 29 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 2010)
- Siegler v. Empire Dawn, LLC, 321 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Alysia M. MacEdo, 228 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 2017)
- E. Fla. Hauling, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 913 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Martinez v. City of Miami, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2385 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)