Jessian Sanchez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 10, 2024
• Docket: 2023-0199
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 10, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-199 Lower Tribunal No. 18-24707 ________________

Jessian Sanchez, et al., Appellants,

vs.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge.

Law Offices of Geoffrey B. Marks and Geoffrey B. Marks, for appellants.

Williams Leininger & Cosby, P.A., and Carri S. Leininger and Maureen Martinez (N. Palm Beach), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Vazquez, 368 So. 3d 456, 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (stating that “the key factor in applying the

confession of judgment doctrine is whether the lawsuit was a necessary

catalyst to resolving the dispute”); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Lorenzo, 969

So. 2d 393, 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“[C]ourts generally do not apply the

[confession of judgment] doctrine where the insureds were not forced to sue

to receive benefits; applying the doctrine would encourage unnecessary

litigation by rewarding a race to the courthouse for attorney’s fees even

where the insurer was complying with its obligations under the policy.”); see

also Goldberg v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 302 So. 3d 919, 923 (Fla.

4th DCA 2020) (explaining that once insurer adjusted insured’s initial claim

“any request by [insured] for additional payment for losses from the same

hurricane fell within the meaning of an ‘additional claim for recovery . . . for

losses from the same hurricane’ which [insured] had “previously adjusted,”

such that claim for further damages constituted a “supplemental claim” under

terms of policy).