SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
SONIA SCHNEPEL, A/K/A SONIA MILLER
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.
The trial court's finding that the defendant is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for capital punishment is supported by competent and substantial evidence under Florida Statute § 921.137(1), and the appellate court will not reweigh evidence or second-guess credibility determinations.
[1] In reviewing a trial court's determination of intellectual disability in a capital case, the appellate court must examine the record for competent, substantial evidence s…
[2] Intellectual disability under Florida Statute § 921.137(1) requires proof by clear and convincing evidence of three concurrent elements: significantly subaverage general…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReginald Jackson was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, and burglary in connection with the 2013 killings of t…
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 Denial Of Coverage cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 18, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0922 Lower Tribunal No. 19-22963
________________
SafePoint Insurance Company,
Appellant,
vs.
Sonia Schnepel, a/k/a Sonia Miller, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge. Bickford & Chidnese, LLP, and Patrick M. Chidnese (Tampa), for appellant. Alvarez, Feltman, Da Silva & Costa, PL, and Paul B. Feltman, for appellee. Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Ifergane v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 232 So. 3d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (noting that if Citizens’ letter to its insured “was a denial of coverage letter, then as a matter of law, Citizens waived any right it had to enforce the insured’s post-loss conditions . . . .”) (citing Wegener v. Int'l Bankers Ins. Co., 494 So. 2d 259, 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (concluding as a matter of law that “the effect of the ... repudiation of coverage was to waive any right to insist upon the insureds' ... compliance with the various conditions to recovery”) and Castro v. Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 228 So. 3d 596, 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (“When an insurance carrier investigates a claim of loss and denies coverage because it concludes that a covered loss has not occurred, the insurance carrier cannot assert the insured's failure to comply with the policy's conditions precedent to filing suit as a basis for summary judgment.”))
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wegener v. Int'l Bankers Ins. Co., 494 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Castro v. Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 228 So. 3d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
- Haim Michel Ifergane v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 232 So. 3d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)