CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION v. DASARO ENTERPRISE, INC., etc.
This text of CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION v. DASARO ENTERPRISE, INC., etc. (CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION v. DASARO ENTERPRISE, INC., etc.) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 22, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-2165 Lower Tribunal No. 19-6769CC ________________
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellant,
vs.
Dasaro Enterprise, Inc., etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Gloria Gonzalez-Meyer, Judge.
Lydecker LLP, and Michelle Diverio and Janice Lopez, for appellant.
No appearance, for appellee.
Before SCALES, LINDSEY and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Appellant Citizens Property Insurance Company, the defendant below,
appeals a series of orders that effectively entered final summary judgment
against Citizens in the amount of $2,822.15. The judgment stems from a
$5,822.15 invoice that appellee Dasaro Enterprise, Inc. (“Dasaro”), as the
assignee of Citizens’s insured, sent to Citizens for emergency water
mitigation services Dasaro provided at the home of Citizens’s insured. The
underlying homeowner’s insurance policy’s “Reasonable Emergency
Measures” provision, though, limits to $3000 Citizens’s payment obligation
for necessary measures taken solely to protect the property from further
damage, unless Citizens approves a “request . . . to exceed the [$3,000]
limit” within forty-eight hours of receiving a request. 1 Having received no
such “request” – other than Dasaro’s invoice for work already completed –
Citizens paid Dasaro only the $3,000 policy limit.
In May 2019, Dasaro brought this action in the county court for Miami-
Dade County, seeking the $2,822.15 difference between its invoice and the
policy limit paid to it by Citizens. The trial court entered the challenged
orders, accepting Dasaro’s arguments below that (i) its invoice for completed
1 This policy provision provides that if Citizens fails to respond within forty- eight hours of its receipt of the insured’s request, “[the insured] may exceed the [$3,000] amount . . . only up to the cost incurred by [the insured] for the reasonable emergency measures necessary to protect the covered property from further damage.”
2 repairs was tantamount to the “request” contemplated in the “Reasonable
Emergency Repairs” provision; and (ii) because Citizens did not pay, or
otherwise respond to, the invoice within forty-eight hours, the “request” was
deemed approved.
When the trial court entered the challenged orders, though, neither the
parties, nor the trial court, had the benefit of our recent decision in All
Insurance Restoration Services, Inc. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp.,
328 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). All Insurance Restoration Services is
controlling and compels us to reverse the challenged orders, and remand for
the trial court to enter a final judgment for Citizens. Id. at 1061 (“Seeking
payment of an invoice for services already rendered does not equate to
requesting authorization to exceed the $3,000 limit. Therefore, although
Citizen[s] is required to respond within forty-eight hours to a request to
exceed the $3,000 limit for reasonable emergency measures, it is not
required to respond to a demand for payment of an invoice for reasonable
emergency measures already rendered to an insured. As such, the trial court
properly entered final summary judgment in favor of Citizens and against
AIRS because under the unambiguous language in the insurance contract,
Citizens satisfied its contractual obligations when it submitted the $3,000
check to AIRS.”).
3 Reversed 2 and remanded with instructions.
2 One of the orders appealed by Citizens is an October 4, 2021 order that, while not entirely clear, purports to dismiss the case as a mechanism for establishing that Dasaro was the prevailing party in the lower proceeding. We quash, rather than reverse, this October 4, 2021 order.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION v. DASARO ENTERPRISE, INC., etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-property-insurance-corporation-v-dasaro-enterprise-inc-etc-fladistctapp-2022.