Court Opinion

ID: 9950096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 14:04:51.260889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:49.815620
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed March 13, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D23-312
                       Lower Tribunal No. 15-12214
                          ________________

            Citizens Property Insurance Corporation,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                           Maylin Rodriguez,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R.
Lopez, Judge.

      Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and George A. Hooker and Jose F.
Campos and Ron M. Campbell (Fort Lauderdale); Link & Rockenbach, PA
and Kara Rockenbach Link and Daniel M. Schwarz (West Palm Beach), for
appellant.

     The Nation Law Firm and Mark A. Nation and Paul W. Pritchard
(Longwood), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Tower Hill Prime Ins. v. Bermudez, 48 Fla. L. Weekly

D2240, 2023 WL 8246151, *3 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 29, 2023) (affirming trial

court’s denial of insurer’s motion for directed verdict on policy’s soil

movement exclusion because based on experts’ testimony “jury could

reasonably have concluded that it was the shock waves, and not soil or earth

movement, that shook the house and caused damage to the Insured's

home”); Feldman v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 373 So. 3d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA

2023) (explaining that directed verdict is proper on insured’s initial burden of

proof to show physical loss occurred during policy period where there is no

conflicting evidence about when damage occurred and no view of evidence

would support verdict for insurer on issue); Linn v. Fossum, 946 So. 2d 1032,

1036 (Fla. 2006) (applying harmless error analysis to defendant’s improper

bolstering of expert witness testimony).

                                       2