Case Name: ISLAND BREAKERS-a Condominium, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. HIGHLANDS UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-12-13
Citations: 665 So. 2d 1084
Docket Number: No. 94-1080
Parties: ISLAND BREAKERS—a Condominium, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. HIGHLANDS UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee.
Judges: Before BASKIN, COPE and LEVY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 665
Pages: 1084–1086

Head Matter:
ISLAND BREAKERS—a Condominium, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. HIGHLANDS UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee.
No. 94-1080.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 13, 1995.
Rosenberg, Reisman & Stein; Cooper & Wolfe and Sharon L. Wolfe and Barbara A. Silverman, Miami, for appellant.
Parenti, Falk, Waas & Frazier and Gail Leverett Parenti, Coral Gables, for appellee.
Before BASKIN, COPE and LEVY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In view of the fact that the record reflects the existence of several areas of material facts that are in dispute, it was error for the trial court to grant the summary judgment under review herein. E.g., Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).
Specifically, the areas of material facts that are disputed by the parties include the nature, extent, and cause of the damage found in some of the balconies of the condominium building. Moreover, the parties also dispute the time at which the condominium association first became aware of the fact that there was a structural problem in some of the balconies.
Each of the foregoing factual disputes can only be resolved by the trier-of-fact.. Furthermore, it will be necessary for the trier-of-fact to resolve these material factual issues before it can be determined, by either the trier-of-fact or the Court, which provision or provisions of the insurance contract govern the question of coverage as it relates to the appellants' damage claims for the various balconies. In addition, it is conceivable that the trier-of-fact might resolve the foregoing issues differently with respect to different balconies located within a particular building.
Accordingly, the summary judgment under review is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
BASKIN and LEVY, JJ., concur.