U.S. Second District Court of Appeal of Florida Reverses Summary Judgment in Roof Damage Claim
On March 29, 2024, in Michel Lassiter v. Citizens Property Ins. Co., Case No. 2D2022 2609, the U.S. Second District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed a summary judgment ruling in favor of Citizens in a breach of contract claim for roof damage, finding that the trial court had inaccurately weighed the evidence by concluding that there were no genuine disputes regarding material facts.
The dispute in Lassiter v. Citizens centered on damage to Lassiter’s home in Largo, Florida, allegedly caused by high winds and hail during a storm in April 2020. Lassiter claimed the storm damaged her roof, leading to leaks and interior water damage. However, Citizens, her insurer at the time, denied the claim, citing policy exclusions for wear and tear and the requirement for an opening created by a covered peril for interior water damage coverage.
Citizens argued that Lassiter failed to prove peril-related damage and an opening in her roof as required by the policy. The insurer supported its motion for summary judgment with an affidavit, inspection reports, and depositions showing no signs of covered damage to the roof but signs of wear and tear, marring and clogged gutters.
In response, Lassiter filed a breach of contract action, contending that the damages were caused by the storm and that Citizens should provide coverage. She submitted an affidavit from an engineer who opined that the property was damaged by high wind and hail, creating openings that allowed water to enter and cause damage.
The trial court granted Citizens’ motion for summary judgment, finding that Lassiter’s deposition testimony established rain as the cause of the damage, triggering the rain exclusion in the policy. The court also noted the lack of evidence reflecting any opening in the roof or physical loss to support Lassiter’s claim.
The Second District Court of Appeal disagreed with the ruling, finding that the trial court improperly weighed the evidence, particularly the affidavits supporting each party’s position, which created a genuine dispute as to a material fact. Accordingly, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Kelly M. Vogt