MARTINEZ v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Eliseo MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 3D20-1041

Decided: June 30, 2021

Before EMAS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and GORDO, JJ.

Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez, & Martinez, P.L., and Steven E. Gurian, for appellant. Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Thomas A. Valdez and Vilma Martinez (Tampa), for appellee.

Affirmed. Vazquez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 304 So. 3d 1280, 1285 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (holding that the cost of matching continuous flooring is not “included as part of the actual cash value calculation” under section 627.7011, Florida Statutes, and the plain language of the insurance policy); see also Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 707, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“Merely attaching documents which are not ‘sworn to or certified’ to a motion for summary judgment does not, without more, satisfy the procedural strictures inherent in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(e).”); Pangilinan v. Broward Cty., 914 So. 2d 1094, 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (en banc) (“[A] trial court does not abuse its discretion in determining that a counter-affidavit presented for the first time on rehearing of a summary judgment is too late.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network