PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY v. ANTONIO J. SOCARRAS AND RACHEL SOCARRAS

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 18, 2020
Docket19-1767
StatusPublished

This text of PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY v. ANTONIO J. SOCARRAS AND RACHEL SOCARRAS (PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY v. ANTONIO J. SOCARRAS AND RACHEL SOCARRAS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY v. ANTONIO J. SOCARRAS AND RACHEL SOCARRAS, (Fla. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed November 18, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D19-1767 Lower Tribunal No. 18-24447 ________________

People's Trust Insurance Company, Appellant,

vs.

Antonio J. Socarras and Rachel Socarras, Appellees.

An Appeal from non-final orders from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.

Brett Frankel and Jonathan Sabghir (Deerfield Beach); Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Mark D. Tinker (Tampa), for appellant.

Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez, & Martinez, P.L., and Steven E. Gurian, for appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES, and HENDON, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Ortega, 2020 WL 3443454, at *3

(Fla. 3d DCA June 24, 2020) (“We have held that when an insurer reasonably

disputes whether an insured has sufficiently complied with a policy's post-loss

conditions so as to trigger the policy’s appraisal provision, a question of fact is

created that must be resolved by the trial court before the trial court may compel

appraisal. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Concepcion, 83 So. 3d 908, 910 (Fla. 3d DCA

2012) (citing Citizens Prop. Ins. v. Gutierrez, 59 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011);

Citizens Prop. Ins. v. Mango Hill Condo. Ass'n 12 Inc., 54 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA

2011); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Maytin, 51 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)).”);

Am. Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 276 So. 3d 905, 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[W]hile

the interpretation of the terms of an insurance contract normally presents an issue of

law, the question of whether certain actions constitute compliance with the contract

often presents an issue of fact. See State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Figueroa, 218 So. 3d

886, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (‘Whether an insured substantially complied with

policy obligations is a question of fact.’ (emphasis added); Solano v. State Farm Fla.

Ins. Co., 155 So. 3d 367, 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (‘A question of fact remains as

to whether there was sufficient compliance with the cooperation provisions of the

policy to provide State Farm with adequate information to settle the loss claims or

go to an appraisal, thus precluding a forfeiture of benefits owed to the insureds.’)

(emphasis added).”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Solano v. State Farm Florida Insurance Co.
155 So. 3d 367 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Figueroa
218 So. 3d 886 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Maytin
51 So. 3d 591 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Mango Hill Condominium Ass'n 12
54 So. 3d 578 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Gutierrez
59 So. 3d 177 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
United Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Concepcion
83 So. 3d 908 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY v. ANTONIO J. SOCARRAS AND RACHEL SOCARRAS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peoples-trust-insurance-company-v-antonio-j-socarras-and-rachel-socarras-fladistctapp-2020.