Court Opinion

ID: 9958914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 14:03:58.475366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:11.351444
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed April 10, 2024.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D23-199
                       Lower Tribunal No. 18-24707
                          ________________

                       Jessian Sanchez, et al.,
                                 Appellants,

                                     vs.

            Citizens Property Insurance Corporation,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J.
Rebull, Judge.

      Law Offices of Geoffrey B. Marks and Geoffrey B. Marks, for
appellants.

      Williams Leininger & Cosby, P.A., and Carri S. Leininger and Maureen
Martinez (N. Palm Beach), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.

     Affirmed. See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Vazquez, 368 So. 3d 456,
459 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (stating that “the key factor in applying the

confession of judgment doctrine is whether the lawsuit was a necessary

catalyst to resolving the dispute”); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Lorenzo, 969

So. 2d 393, 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“[C]ourts generally do not apply the

[confession of judgment] doctrine where the insureds were not forced to sue

to receive benefits; applying the doctrine would encourage unnecessary

litigation by rewarding a race to the courthouse for attorney’s fees even

where the insurer was complying with its obligations under the policy.”); see

also Goldberg v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 302 So. 3d 919, 923 (Fla.

4th DCA 2020) (explaining that once insurer adjusted insured’s initial claim

“any request by [insured] for additional payment for losses from the same

hurricane fell within the meaning of an ‘additional claim for recovery . . . for

losses from the same hurricane’ which [insured] had “previously adjusted,”

such that claim for further damages constituted a “supplemental claim” under

terms of policy).

                                       2