Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Eduardo Andres Hernandez, et al.

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed November 19, 2025.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-461
Lower Tribunal No. 20-2163-CA-01
________________
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company ,
Appellant,
vs.
Eduardo Andres Hernandez, et al. ,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P.
Echarte, Jr., Judge.
Link & Rockenbach, P.A., and Kara Rockenbach Link and David A.
Noel (West Palm Beach), for appellant.
Alonso & Perez, LLP and Rafael F. Alonso, for appellees.
Before EMAS, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.
GORDO, J.

2
In this first-party property insurance dispute, Universal Property &
Casualty 	Insurance 	Company 	(“Universal”) 	appeals 	an 	amended 	final
summary judgment entered in favor of Eduardo Andres Hernandez, Ana
Hernandez and Olga Pacheco (“Homeowners”). 	We have jurisdiction. 	Fla.
R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I.
On October 17, 2019, the Homeowners’ residential property, insured
by Universal, sustained water damage due to a plumbing system failure. The
Homeowners 	retained 	a 	plumbing 	company 	to 	perform 	emergency
temporary repairs. On October 22, 2019, they reported the loss to Universal.
On October 27, 2019, Universal sent a letter to the Homeowners
requesting they fulfill their post-loss obligations by providing a sworn proof of
loss, 	a 	detailed 	repair 	estimate, 	photographs, 	plumbing 	videos 	and 	a
recorded statement. In January 2020, counsel for the Homeowners provided
Universal with plumbing invoices, photographs, a sworn proof of loss and a
repair estimate. Counsel also stated they would reach out to the plumber to
obtain the plumbing video and asked for available dates to schedule the
recorded statement.
On January 29, 2020, one week after providing the repair estimate, the
Homeowners filed the underlying action against Universal for breach of

3
contract.1 Universal filed an answer asserting affirmative defenses, alleging
the Homeowners failed to comply with their contractually mandated post-loss
obligations by not providing all requested documents.
The 	Homeowners 	moved 	for 	summary 	judgment 	on 	coverage,
asserting they had provided Universal with all requested documentation. In
support, they submitted several exhibits, including the affidavit of Eduardo
Hernandez, who attested that, before filing suit, all requested materials—
such as the proof of loss, damage estimate, photographs, plumbing video
and repair invoices—had been provided to Universal.
Universal opposed the motion, arguing the Homeowners failed to
substantially comply with their post-loss obligations and that Universal was
prejudiced by their noncompliance. In support, Universal submitted exhibits
including the affidavit of its corporate representative, Jimmy Casas, who
attested that Universal never received certain requested items—such as the
plumbing video and recorded statement—and was therefore unable to
complete its investigation or issue a coverage determination.
Following a hearing, the trial court granted the Homeowners’ motion
for summary judgment on coverage, finding no genuine dispute as to any
1 The Homeowners subsequently filed their operative amended complaint.

4
material fact. 	Universal moved for rehearing, which the trial court denied.
This appeal followed.
II.
“Our standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de
novo.” Betancourt v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 406 So. 3d 1011, 1013 (Fla.
3d DCA 2025) (quoting Ottey v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 299 So. 3d 500,
501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)). 	“The court shall grant summary judgment if the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 	Id. 	(quoting Fla. R.
Civ. P. 1.510(a)).
III.
Universal argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment
because 	a 	genuine 	dispute 	of 	material 	fact 	exists 	as 	to 	whether 	the
Homeowners substantially complied with their post-loss obligations. 	We
agree.
Both parties submitted competing affidavits regarding whether the
Homeowners substantially complied with their post-loss obligations. 	The
Homeowners asserted they provided all requested materials, including the
plumbing 	video. 	While 	there 	was 	evidence 	in 	the 	record 	of 	emails
transmitting certain documents, there was no attachment or mention of

5
providing the plumbing video. 	In fact, in one email, the Homeowners’
counsel stated they would contact the plumber to obtain the video but filed
the underlying action shortly thereafter. 	There is no evidence in the record
that 	the 	plumbing 	video 	was 	ever 	received 	by 	Universal. 	Universal
maintained that it never received either the plumbing video or the recorded
statement and that it repeatedly requested both from the Homeowners.
Because 	Universal’s 	evidence 	created 	a 	genuine 	dispute 	as 	to 	both
substantial 	compliance 	with 	post-loss 	obligations 	and 	the 	existence 	of
prejudice, we find the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the
Homeowners as a matter of law. See Chowdhury v. BankUnited, N.A., 366
So. 3d 1130, 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“Our new summary judgment
standard mirrors the standard for a directed verdict such that the inquiry
focuses on ‘whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to
require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must
prevail as a matter of law.’” (quoting In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc.
1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 192 (Fla. 2020))); Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v.
Horne, 314 So. 3d 688, 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“When an insurer has
alleged, 	as 	an 	affirmative 	defense 	to 	coverage, 	and 	thereafter 	has
subsequently established, that an insured has failed to substantially comply
with a contractually mandated post-loss obligation, prejudice to the insurer

6
from the insured’s material breach is presumed, and the burden then shifts
to the insured to show that any breach of post-loss obligations did not
prejudice the insurer.” (quoting Am. Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 276 So. 3d
905, 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019))); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Figueroa, 218 So.
3d 886, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“Whether an insured substantially complied
with policy obligations is a question of fact. Whether an insurer is prejudiced
by an insured's untimely compliance is also a question of fact.”); Daniel’s
Tree Serv., Inc. v. Nat’l Core Servs. Corp., 379 So. 3d 524, 530 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2023) (“Nor could the circuit court have resolved those issues on
summary judgment, given that the competing affidavits plainly created
genuine issues of material fact on those issues.”); Finell v. Fla. Ins. Guar.
Ass’n, Inc., 383 So. 3d 836, 837-39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (“We find that the
trial court erred in entering summary judgment because an issue of fact
remains regarding whether the insured cooperated . . . . Thus, we reverse
and remand for further proceedings.”).
Accordingly, we reverse the amended final summary judgment and
remand the cause for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.