DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT THERESA GROMANN, Appellant, v. AVATAR PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. 4D21-1896 [August 10, 2022] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2017-CA- 004244-XXXX-MB. Monique A. Low of David Low & Associates, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. Paulo R. Lima and Elizabeth K. Russo of Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., Miami, for appellee. FORST, J. Appellant Theresa Gromann (“Homeowner”) appeals the trial court’s order granting the summary judgment motion filed by the defendant, Avatar Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Avatar”), with respect to Homeowner’s breach of contract complaint. On appeal, Homeowner argues final summary judgment for Avatar was inappropriate because Avatar relied on inadmissible evidence to support its argument. We agree and reverse the trial court’s summary final judgment, remanding for further proceedings. Background On September 26, 2016, Homeowner allegedly sustained a loss to her property resulting from external water damage. At the time of this loss, Homeowner held an all-risks property and casualty insurance policy with Avatar. Prior to informing Avatar of the damage, Homeowner hired roof and drywall contractors to perform repairs. While these repairs were being conducted, mold was discovered in several rooms. Three weeks after the initial discovery of damages, Homeowner notified Avatar of the water intrusion and mold. Avatar promptly dispatched an adjustor to the property. The adjustor was unable to determine the source or recency of the damage or confirm the presence of mold. Following the adjustor’s visit, Homeowner had further repairs to the property. Pursuant to Avatar’s post-loss guidelines, Homeowner submitted to an examination under oath (“EUO”) and filed a sworn proof of loss (“SPOL”). Homeowner filed her SPOL with the assistance of Bulldog Adjusting, Inc., a public adjuster. Homeowner sought a replacement cost value of $109,232.13, including $66,209.33 for a new roof; these numbers were taken from a repair estimate prepared by Bulldog Adjusting. Avatar subsequently denied coverage for Homeowner’s loss, claiming Homeowner committed several material breaches of the policy and submitted a fraudulent roof repair estimate. Homeowner filed suit against Avatar for breach of contract, and Avatar responded by filing a motion for summary judgment. In support of this motion, Avatar filed an affidavit executed by its “corporate representative” which repeats the contents of Avatar’s summary judgment motion verbatim. Following a hearing, the trial court granted Avatar’s motion for summary judgment. Arguing Avatar’s evidence (primarily the corporate representative’s affidavit) was insufficient to establish the lack of a genuine issue of material fact, Homeowner appeals the trial court’s summary judgment decision. Analysis We review de novo the question of whether the trial court erred in finding Avatar satisfied its burden for summary judgment. See Restoration Constr., LLC v. SafePoint Ins. Co., 308 So. 3d 649, 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Under the standard in force at the time of Avatar’s motion, 1 “[s]ummary 1 After the trial court issued its final summary judgment that is the subject of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals