Florida Court: Water Damage Lawsuit Against Citizens Property Insurance to Proceed to Trial
In a significant legal development, a Florida appeals court has revived a homeowner’s lawsuit against Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, mandating that the case proceed to trial following an earlier dismissal. The dispute, centered on water damage to a residential property, highlights the complexities involved in property insurance claims, specifically regarding when the damage occurred and whether it falls within the policy’s coverage period.
At the heart of the matter are homeowners Miguel Betancourt and Ana Diaz, who had secured a residential insurance policy from Citizens covering the period from October 10, 2018, to October 10, 2019. The standard policy included coverage for “direct physical loss” but excluded damage that predated the policy’s start date. On July 9, 2019, within the coverage window, the homeowners discovered water damage in multiple areas of their Miami-Dade County property, most notably in the master bedroom. A public adjuster was called to assess the situation, and a claim was subsequently filed with Citizens.
After conducting an investigation, including an inspection by an industrial hygienist, Citizens denied the claim. The insurer’s expert attributed the water damage to a “historic leak” originating from a pre-existing shower and bathtub enclosure, which had reportedly been ongoing for at least two months. The hygienist’s report concluded that the damage was not new, thus not covered under the policy.
The homeowners subsequently initiated legal action, alleging a breach of contract. Citizens responded by filing a motion for summary judgment, arguing that no genuine dispute of material fact existed to determine when the damage occurred. They presented the affidavit from their hygienist as evidence. The homeowners countered with their own expert—a licensed engineer—who had personally inspected the property and reviewed relevant documents, including photographs and reports. The engineer acknowledged the possibility of the leak commencing before the policy’s start date, but he contended that there was no clear evidence of damage predating October 2018. He noted the absence of typical indicators of long-term water intrusion, such as rotted wood, swollen drywall, or significant mold growth.
Despite the homeowners’ counter-argument, the trial court sided with Citizens, concluding that the engineer’s opinion was too conclusory, and incapable of challenging the insurer’s evidence. Summary judgment was granted, seemingly ending the case.
However, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision last week, determining that the homeowners’ expert testimony provided sufficient grounds to warrant a trial. The appellate court held that the engineer’s affidavit, based on his inspection, report analysis, and professional experience, raised legitimate questions about the damage timeline. The court dismissed the notion that the homeowners’ case rested on mere speculation, concluding that factual disagreements between opposing experts should be settled by a jury, not at the summary judgment stage.
Quoting prior precedent, the appellate court reiterated that the standard for summary judgment mirrors that for a directed verdict: whether the evidence is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. In this instance, it was not.
At issue in the litigation is a common exclusion in property insurance policies: coverage not being provided for pre-existing damage. Insurers are naturally cautious about being held liable for conditions that predate the policy commencement, while policyholders often maintain that gradual issues went undetected and worsened within the coverage period. The Betancourt case illustrates the critical role of expert testimony in resolving such disputes. Here, the differing conclusions of the opposing experts regarding the damage’s timeframe led the appeals court to rule that such conflicts warrant a full hearing in court. The case will now return to the Miami-Dade Circuit Court, where a jury will be tasked with evaluating the testimony to decide if the water damage falls within the policy’s coverage.
