Lazara Gonzalez v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Company

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 9, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-0477
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 9, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D24-0477 Lower Tribunal No. 20-16259-CA-01

Lazara Gonzalez, Appellant,

vs.

Florida Peninsula Insurance Company, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles Kenneth Johnson, Judge.

Moises | Gross PLLC and Stuart B. Yanofsky, for appellant.

Colodny Fass and Carolyn Gilbert Epstein (Sunrise), for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150,

1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate

court can not [sic] properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to

conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence[.] .

. . The trial court should have been affirmed because the record brought

forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.”);

Castro v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 365 So. 3d 1203, 1206-07 (Fla. 3d DCA

2023) (“Whether notice was provided in a prompt manner is ordinarily a

question for the factfinder, but ‘if the undisputed evidence will not support a

finding that the insured gave notice to the insurer as soon as practicable,

then a finding that notice was timely given is unsupportable.’” (internal

citations omitted)); Hope v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 114 So. 3d 457, 460

(Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“[The] evidence, however, is merely conclusory and fails

to rebut the presumption of prejudice to [the insurer] where the passage of

time has rendered [the insurer] unable to determine exactly what current

damage is directly attributable to [the hurricane], and thus a covered loss.”).