Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Tracy Kealy

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed November 26, 2025.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1127
Lower Tribunal No. 21-16374-CA-01
________________
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company ,
Appellant,
vs.
Tracy Kealy ,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara
Areces, Judge.
Link & Rockenbach, P.A., and Kara Rockenbach Link, and David A.
Noel, (West Palm Beach), for appellant.
The 	Nation 	Law 	Firm, 	Mark 	A. 	Nation, 	and 	Paul 	W. 	Pritchard
(Longwood), for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.

2
Affirmed. 	See Triple R Paving, Inc. v. Broward Cnty., 774 So. 2d 50,
56–57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“Trial courts are accorded broad discretion in
their decisions to give a particular jury instruction, and any such decision will
not be reversed on appeal absent prejudicial error.”); Botte v. Pomeroy, 497
So. 2d 1275, 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (“While the content of the verdict
form is normally within the trial court's discretion, we agree that ordinarily the
verdict form should parallel the court's instruction on the law and not give
undue prominence to any single issue in the case.”); Miguel v. Richardson,
335 So. 2d 575, 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (“The jury should be submitted
forms of verdict which permit it to arrive at a verdict or verdicts consistent
with the claims of the plaintiff . . . and the defenses addressed thereto.”);
Jones v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 323 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (“In
reaching a determination that a jury was misled or confused by a jury charge,
the appellate court must inquire whether a jury might reasonably have been
misled by the charge or instruction.”); Mejia v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 161
So. 3d 576, 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“[A]n insured claiming under an all-risks
policy has the burden of proving that the insured property suffered a loss
while the policy was in effect. The burden then shifts to the insurer to prove
that the cause of the loss was excluded from coverage under the policy's
terms.”); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Barberan, 396 So. 3d 229, 230 (Fla. 2d

3
DCA 2024) (affirming the final judgment and holding that the trial court did
not err in “instructing the jury that the [plaintiffs]’ burden was to prove damage
to their home during the policy period and, if they did so, then [the defendant]
had the burden to prove that the loss was excluded from coverage”); Vasta
v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 407 So. 3d 1256, 1260 (Fla. 2d DCA
2025) (holding that the burden of proof in claims arising under all-risks
insurance policies under settled Florida law requires a verdict form to include
a question asking whether the insured “had proven by the greater weight of
the evidence that a loss had occurred during the policy’s term” rather than
improperly assigning “the burden of proving several separate points”).
SCALES, C.J., and MILLER, J., concur.
BOKOR, J., dissents.