Narrative Opinion Summary
Lizardo and Blanco Estrada appeal the trial court’s final summary judgment in favor of Tower Hill Select Insurance Company regarding their breach of contract claim for sinkhole damage to their home. The case parallels Roker v. Tower Hill Preferred Insurance Co., where the court found that a material issue of fact existed concerning subsurface repair methods, leading to the reversal of the summary judgment. Following the precedent set in Roker, the court reverses the judgment and remands the case for further proceedings. Additionally, in a separate appeal (2D14-1101), Tower Hill contests the trial court’s denial of its motion for attorney's fees and costs under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, which the court affirms without further discussion. The decision results in a partial affirmation, partial reversal, and remand for further action. Judges Altenbernd and Northcutt concur with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Precedent in Legal Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the precedent set in Roker v. Tower Hill Preferred Insurance Co., reversing the trial court's summary judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.
Reasoning: Following the precedent set in Roker, the court reverses the judgment and remands the case for further proceedings.
Attorney's Fees and Costs under Florida Statutes Section 57.105subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's denial of Tower Hill's motion for attorney's fees and costs was affirmed without further discussion.
Reasoning: Additionally, in a separate appeal (2D14-1101), Tower Hill contests the trial court’s denial of its motion for attorney's fees and costs under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, which the court affirms without further discussion.
Summary Judgment in Breach of Contract Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's summary judgment was reversed due to the existence of a material issue of fact regarding subsurface repair methods, necessitating further proceedings.
Reasoning: The case parallels Roker v. Tower Hill Preferred Insurance Co., where the court found that a material issue of fact existed concerning subsurface repair methods, leading to the reversal of the summary judgment.