Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reverses five interlocutory orders in favor of the appellees, leading to a reversal of the final judgment.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appealed a May 2, 2023, final judgment entered in favor of Ramon and Aleida Arias, which resulted from three partial summary judgment orders, one motion for leave to amend an order and one Daubert order, all of which effectively ruled Citizens’ coverage defenses were not applicable. 

The trial court entered three partial summary judgment orders resulting from motions filed by the Ariases, arguing Citizens’ affirmative defenses and claiming the Ariases’ loss was not covered by the policy since the alleged water damage was caused by a constant or repeated seepage or leakage from varying sources within the property, as well as wear and tear of a plumbing line. 

In opposition to the Ariases’ partial summary judgment motions, Citizens filed their engineer’s inspection report, which supported its affirmative defenses. As a result of the partial summary judgment motions, the trial court imposed unsupported limitations on Citizens’ coverage defenses—Citizens could only rely on evidence of wear and tear after the inspection for renewing the policy and the damage to the home occurring before seepage or leakage became constant or repeated was covered. Neither limitation was supported by Florida law or the insurance policy, and genuine issues of material fact remained. Thus, the court reversed all three orders. 

Thereafter, Citizens filed a motion for leave to amend its answer and affirmative defenses to add an additional affirmative defense. The trial court denied this motion, relying on the Ariases’ argument that the defense would be futile. However, the Third District Court of Appeal reasoned, not only is Florida liberal in allowing of amendments of pleadings, but, too, the proposed amendment resulted in an issue of fact that Citizens should have been able to plead and attempt to prove at trial. As such, the Third District Court reversed the order denying the motion for leave.

Lastly, the trial court then granted the Ariases’ motion to strike the testimony and report of Citizens’ engineer, concluding his testimony and report did not meet the Daubert standard for expert testimony. The Third District Court concluded the trial court abused its discretion by reviewing how the engineer arrived at his conclusions regarding the cause of the Ariases’ loss—including completing an inspection of their property, gathering additional information, and then applying his engineering experience and training to all information he gathered—before making a conclusion. The court reasoned the trial court should have focused on what the expert did, rather than what he concluded when applying the Daubert standard. 

_{Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – December 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}