JESSIAN SANCHEZ
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 a lower court decision involving insurance policy interpretation under the confession of judgment doctrine. The court clarified that insurers need not apply this doctrine when the insured was not forced to sue to receive policy benefits.
The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the confession of judgment doctrine does not apply where the insured was not forced to sue to receive benefits, and that once an insurer adjusts an initial claim, subsequent requests for additional payment constitute supplemental claims previously adjusted under the policy terms.
[1] The confession of judgment doctrine does not apply in insurance disputes where the insurer was complying with its policy obligations and the insured was not forced to lit…
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“the key factor in applying the confession of judgment doctrine is whether the lawsuit was a necessary catalyst to resolving the dispute”
Establishes the primary test for whether the confession of judgment doctrine applies in insurance disputes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJessian Sanchez brought a claim against Citizens Property Insurance Corporation regarding insurance benefits. The case involved whether the insurer's …
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 Confession Of Judgment Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Williams Leininger & Cosby, P.A., and Carri S. Leininger and Maureen Martinez (N. Palm Beach), for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Vazquez, 368 So. 3d 456,
459 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (stating that “the key factor in applying the confession of judgment doctrine is whether the lawsuit was a necessary catalyst to resolving the dispute”); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Lorenzo, 969
So. 2d 393, 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“[C]ourts generally do not apply the
[confession of judgment] doctrine where the insureds were not forced to sue to receive benefits; applying the doctrine would encourage unnecessary litigation by rewarding a race to the courthouse for attorney’s fees even where the insurer was complying with its obligations under the policy.”); see also Goldberg v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 302 So. 3d 919, 923 (Fla.
4th DCA 2020) (explaining that once insurer adjusted insured’s initial claim
“any request by [insured] for additional payment for losses from the same hurricane fell within the meaning of an ‘additional claim for recovery . . . for losses from the same hurricane’ which [insured] had “previously adjusted,” such that claim for further damages constituted a “supplemental claim” under terms of policy).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jessian Sanchez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 368 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Vazquez, 368 So. 3d 456, 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (stating that “the key factor in applying the confession of judgment doctrine is whether the lawsuit was a necessary catalyst to resolving the dispute”); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Lorenzo, 969 So. 2d 393, 398 (Fla. 5th DC…1 / 2
-
Weston v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 425 So. 3d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
-
Eddrin Martinez and Carmen Martinez v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…ling of a proof of loss becomes, in the eyes of the law, a useless and unnecessary thing that would accomplish nothing.” Keel v. Indep. Life & Accid. Ins. Co., 99 So. 2d 225, 227 (Fla. 1957); see also Goldberg v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 302 So. 3d 919, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“An insurer’s repudiation of ---PAGE 4--- coverage waives the insurer’s right to insist upon the insured’s compliance with policy conditions, such as filing a proof of loss.”). Here, Universal denied coverage prior to t…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Lorenzo, 969 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Jessian Sanchez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 368 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)