Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Maytin

51 So. 3d 591, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19847, 2010 WL 5348554
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 29, 2010
DocketNo. 3D10-693
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 51 So. 3d 591 (Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Maytin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Maytin, 51 So. 3d 591, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19847, 2010 WL 5348554 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

SUAREZ, J.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens”) appeals a non-final order granting Osvaldo Maytin’s motion to compel appraisal of a claim under his homeowners’ insurance policy with Citizens. After Maytin filed suit for breach of contract against Citizens, he moved to compel appraisal. Citizens answered the complaint and asserted that Maytin failed to comply with post-loss conditions and prevented Citizens from fully inspecting his property, thereby, precluding the invocation of the appraisal clause under the insurance policy.

On the authority of Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Galeria Villas Condominium Association, 48 So.3d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), we reverse the trial court’s grant of the motion to compel appraisal and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine if Maytin complied with the post-loss conditions under the policy. See First Home Ins. Co. v. Fleurimond, 36 So.3d 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); see also Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori, 28 So.3d 129, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“[W]here the ‘insured cooperates to some degree or provides an explanation for its noncompliance, a fact question is presented’ regarding the necessity or sufficiency of compliance.... Whether appellees’ compliance with the policy terms was necessary or sufficient is a dispute of fact.”) (citation omitted); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Romay, 744 So.2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Blakely v. First Protective Ins. Co.
260 So. 3d 1200 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
United Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Concepcion
83 So. 3d 908 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Citizens Property Insurance v. De Los Cuetos
88 So. 3d 249 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Abbott
63 So. 3d 924 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
United Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Tuff
60 So. 3d 592 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Gutierrez
59 So. 3d 177 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Mango Hill Condominium Ass'n 12
54 So. 3d 578 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 So. 3d 591, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19847, 2010 WL 5348554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-property-insurance-corp-v-maytin-fladistctapp-2010.