Court Opinion

ID: 9379283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 14:02:59.348557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:16.892078
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed March 15, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D21-1844
                        Lower Tribunal No. 16-9950
                           ________________

                            Adalberto Vega,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

            Citizens Property Insurance Corporation,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles K.
Johnson, Judge.

      Perry & Neblett, P.A., David Avellar Neblett and John A. Wynn, for
appellant.

     Paul R. Pearcy, P.A., and Maureen G. Pearcy, for appellee.

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

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760

So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) (“Summary judgment is proper if there is no

genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment

as a matter of law.”); In re Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72,

78 (Fla. 2021) (“Any pending rehearing of a summary judgment motion

decided under the pre-amendment rule should be decided under the pre-

amendment rule, subject of course to a party’s ability to file a renewed motion

for summary judgment under the new rule.”); Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. v.

Macedo, 228 So. 3d 1111, 1113 (Fla. 2017) (“Insurance policy construction

is a question of law subject to de novo review.”) (citing Wash. Nat’l Ins. Corp.

v. Ruderman, 117 So. 3d 943, 948 (Fla. 2013)); Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co.,

29 So. 3d 1000, 1005 (Fla. 2010) (“[A] question of insurance policy

interpretation, which is a question of law, [is also] subject to de novo

review.”); E. Florida Hauling, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 913 So. 2d 673, 676

(Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“When the language of an insurance policy is clear and

unambiguous, a court must interpret it according to its plain meaning, giving

effect to the policy as it was written.”); Arguelles v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.,

278 So. 3d 108, 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“Finally, we review a denial of a

motion for rehearing under an abuse of discretion standard.”).

                                        2