GOMEZ v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION (2024)

Although the insured met her initial burden to show that the insured property suffered a loss, she failed to provide any evidence to rebut the insurance company's record evidence regarding the applicability of an exclusion from coverage for preexisting damage. See Kokhan v. Auto Club Ins. Co. of Fla., 297 So. 3d 570, 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“[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.” (quotation omitted)); Deshazior v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 305 So. 3d 752, 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Once the movant produces competent evidence in support of summary judgment, the opposing party must come forward with counterevidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue of material fact.” (quotations omitted)); Gonzalez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 273 So. 3d 1031, 1037–38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (affirming summary judgment for insurer where insured proffered only speculative and conclusory evidence insufficient to create genuine issue of material fact against insurer's affidavits attesting that inspection failed to reveal damages covered by policy).

Affirmed.

BOKOR, J.