Homeowners Choice Insurance Company v. Alexis Jeffrey

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 3D2023-1850
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 15, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1850 Lower Tribunal No. 21-CA-461-K ________________

Homeowners Choice Insurance Company, Appellant.

vs.

Alexis Jeffrey, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Timothy J. Koenig, Judge.

Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig, LLP, and Mihaela Cabulea (Tampa), for appellant.

Chad Barr Law, and Chad A. Barr (Altamonte Springs), for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Guyton, 388 So. 3d 50, 51-52 (Fla.

3d DCA 2023) (“While we apply de novo review to these rulings, in reviewing

the trial court’s denial of the County’s motion for directed verdict . . . an

appellate court must evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the

non-moving party, drawing every reasonable inference flowing from the

evidence in the nonmoving party’s favor, and if there is conflicting evidence

or if different reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence, then

the issue is factual and should be submitted to the jury for resolution. A

directed verdict should only be granted (or affirmed on appeal) where no

proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving

party. . . . [B]ecause the evidence admitted at trial, viewed in a light most

favorable to Guyton, supported the jury’s verdict, we affirm . . . the trial

court’s denial of the County’s motion for directed verdict[.]”); H & H Elec., Inc.

v. Lopez, 967 So. 2d 345, 347-49 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“We review

discretionary issues involving the . . . issuance of jury instructions for abuse

of discretion. . . . Appellants contend that the jury instructions as given were

misleading or confusing . . . . We disagree. . . . Decisions regarding jury

instructions are within the sound discretion of the trial court and absent

prejudicial error, shall not be disturbed on appeal. Prejudicial error requiring

a reversal of judgment or a new trial occurs only where the error complained

2 of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, a miscarriage of

justice arises where instructions are reasonably calculated to confuse or

mislead the jury. In the instant case, there is no evidence that the jury

instructions given were reasonably calculated to mislead the jury . . . . As

such, we find no reversible error in the issuance of these instructions.”)

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).