UNIVERSAL PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. KATTAN (2024)

Affirmed. See Whitman v. Castlewood Intern. Corp., 383 So. 2d 618, 619 (Fla. 1980) (affirming that the two-issue rule provides “that where there is no proper objection to the use of a general verdict, reversal is improper where no error is found as to one of two issues submitted to the jury on the basis that the appellant is unable to establish that he has been prejudiced.”); Mason v. Fla. Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund, 699 So. 2d 268, 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (“Insurance contracts must be read in light of the skill and experience of ordinary people, and be given their everyday meaning as understood by the ‘man on the street.’ ”); Mejia v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 161 So. 3d 576, 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“[A]n insured claiming under an all-risks policy has the burden of proving that the insured property suffered a loss while the policy was in effect. The burden then shifts to the insurer to prove that the cause of the loss was excluded from coverage under the policy's terms.”); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Tio, 304 So. 3d 1278, 1280 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (As the Timing Protocol in the insurance policy has the same effect as section 627.7011(3), Florida Statutes (2022), it likewise “governs an insurer's post-loss obligations in adjusting and settling claims covered by a replacement cost policy, and does not operate as a limitation on a policyholder's remedies for an insurer's breach of an insurance contract.”).

PER CURIAM.