Court Opinion

ID: 9780951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 14:08:17.388062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:16.772586
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed August 30, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D22-469
                        Lower Tribunal No. 17-1210
                           ________________

                           Naomi Beaubrun,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

            GeoVera Specialty Insurance Company,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S.
Walsh, Judge.

     Mintz Truppman, P.A., and Timothy H. Crutchfield, for appellant.

     Paul R. Pearcy, P.A., and Maureen G. Pearcy; and Hinshaw &
Culbertson, LLP, and Joseph V. Manzo, for appellee.

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

     PER CURIAM.
     Naomi Beaubrun (“Insured”) appeals from the trial court’s order

entering final summary judgment in favor of the insurer, GeoVera Specialty

Insurance Co. (“GeoVera”), and denying her motion for partial summary

judgment. We affirm.

     The relevant provisions in the Insured’s policy and the Water Damage

Limitation and Exclusion Endorsement (“WDX Endorsement”) issued by

GeoVera to the Insured are identical to those in GeoVera Specialty

Insurance Co. v. Glasser, 337 So. 3d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). Further, in

both the instant case and in Glasser, the damages were caused by a

sudden discharge of water from the home plumbing system. Based on our

de novo review of the Insured’s policy and the WDX Endorsement, we

agree with the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision and analysis in

Glasser.   Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order entering final

summary judgment in favor of GeoVera and denying Beaubrun’s motion for

partial summary judgment.

     Affirmed.

                                    2