Luis Castellanos v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 31, 2026
• Docket: 3D2024-2064
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 31, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-2064 Lower Tribunal No. 22-11190-CA-01 ________________

Luis Castellanos, et al., Appellants,

vs.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge.

Shield Law Group Florida, LLC, and Jamie Alvarez (Davie), for appellants.

Rothell Law Group, P.A., and Kristi Bergemann Rothell (Greenacres), for appellee.

Before EMAS, LOGUE and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Perez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 343 So. 3d 140, 142-

44 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“This Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion

for summary judgment de novo. Where an insured provides late notice of

their loss to the insurer, prejudice to the insurer will be presumed, and the

insured must rebut said prejudice. The purpose of a provision for notice and

proofs of loss is to enable the insurer to evaluate its rights and liabilities, to

afford it an opportunity to make a timely investigation, and to prevent fraud

and imposition upon it. If the insured breaches the notice provision, prejudice

to the insurer will be presumed, but may be rebutted by a showing that the

insurer has not been prejudiced by the lack of notice. . . . It is well established

that affidavits, 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. We agree with the trial court that Mr. Renne’s

affidavit was wholly conclusory and not adequately supported. . . . Mr.

Renne’s affidavit was insufficient to rebut the 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.”) (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted); Navarro v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 353 So. 3d 1276, 1279-81

2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (same); Bouchard v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 406 So.

3d 311, 313-15 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (same).