Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
CESAR BENITEZ v. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Citation: Not availableDocket: 21-3281
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 12, 2022; Florida; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Cesar Benitez appealed the final summary judgment entered by the Circuit Court in favor of Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company regarding a water damage claim. Benitez, the insured, had reported no prior losses when applying for the policy, but upon filing a claim for new damage, the insurer discovered signs of pre-existing damage and repairs, leading to a denial of the claim. The insurer continued to collect premiums for two years after learning of the undisclosed prior claim. Benitez sued for breach of contract, while the insurer asserted an affirmative defense under Section 627.409, Florida Statutes, which addresses misrepresentations in insurance applications. The statute allows an insurer to deny coverage for a claim based on misrepresentations if they are found to be material or fraudulent. The insurer's policy also allowed for denial of coverage in cases of intentional concealment or misrepresentation by the insured. During a hearing, Benitez acknowledged his failure to disclose the prior claim but argued that the insurer could not rescind the policy since it had accepted premiums post-discovery. However, the insurer clarified it was not seeking policy rescission but merely denial of the claim. The trial court ruled there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding Benitez's misrepresentations, justifying the insurer's denial of the claim under the statute. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that the insurer's defense was valid under Section 627.409, and that the denial of the claim was supported by clear statutory language. As the insurer's summary judgment was appropriately granted based on the misrepresentations, the court did not need to address the potential basis for denial related to fraud on the court. The judgment was upheld, with concurrence from all judges involved. The decision remained subject to a timely filed motion for rehearing.