Indoor Environmental Restoration Now, Inc. A/A/O Carlos Sarmiento and Danilda Baez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 25, 2026
• Docket: 3D2025-1077
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 25, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D25-1077 Lower Tribunal No. 20-10946-CC-05

Indoor Environmental Restoration Now, Inc. a/a/o Carlos Sarmiento and Danilda Baez, Appellant,

vs.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael G. Barket, Judge.

Tyler Law Firm and Ryan C. Tyler, for appellant.

Lydecker LLP, and Alejandro Sanchez Parraga, and Michelle Diverio, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Gidwani v. Roberts, 248 So. 3d 203, 206 (Fla. 3d DCA

2018) (stating that orders granting a motion for summary judgment are

reviewed de novo); Gonzalez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 273 So. 3d 1031,

1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[A]ffidavits, such as those presented by plaintiff,

which are based entirely upon speculation, surmise and conjecture, are

inadmissible at trial and legally insufficient to create a disputed issue of fact

in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.” (quoting Morgan v. Cont'l

Cas. Co., 382 So. 2d 351, 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)); Navarro v. Citizens Prop.

Ins. Corp., 353 So. 3d 1276, 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“This bare conclusion,

however, was bereft of any factual support. This court has previously held

that conclusory affidavits are insufficient ‘to rebut the presumption of

prejudice . . . where the passage of time has rendered [the insurer] unable

to determine exactly what current damage is directly attributable to’ a storm.

Accordingly, Navarro failed to adequately counter the presumption of

prejudice.” (internal citations omitted)); Perez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.,

343 So. 3d 140, 141, 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Perez's failure to report her

loss for over two years, and only after she had conducted repairs and failed

to keep any records of her claimed repair costs, rendered it impossible for

Citizens to determine whether the claimed damages were a result of the

claimed covered event. . . . [The] affidavit was insufficient to rebut the

2 presumption of prejudice to Citizens resulting from Ms. Perez's delay in

reporting the claim. The trial court was therefore eminently correct in its

decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Citizens.”); Laquer v. Citizens

Prop. Ins. Corp., 167 So. 3d 470, 474-75 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“[D]amage to

Laquer's unit or the interior of the wall was not apparent until several

years after Hurricane Wilma: no one, including Laquer, her tenant, her

housekeeper, and the condominium manager and his agents who regularly

visited Laquer's unit, was able to observe any damage to the wood flooring

or walls of the unit prior to September 2008 or was otherwise put on notice

to further inspect for damage. . . . Contrary to Laquer's suggestion, her duty

to provide notice under the policy was not necessarily triggered when she

became aware of the full extent of the damage or when she determined

that Hurricane Wilma was the cause of the damage.” (emphasis added));

Castro v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 365 So. 3d 1203, 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA

2023) (“This passage of time was explained by Castro, who averred that the

property was occupied by a tenant during that time period, that the tenant

never advised Castro of any damage, and that Castro herself was unaware

of any damage to her property until the tenant moved out of the property in

February 2020.” (emphasis added)); Arce v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 388

So. 3d 205, 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), (“Specifically, Mr. Arce's declaration

3 was legally insufficient because it failed to provide any explanation as to why,

for nearly three years, he purportedly was unaware that his home had been

damaged by Hurricane Irma.”).