Elio Martinez, Jr. and Patricia Martinez v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledApril 22, 2020
Docket3D18-1994
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 22, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D18-1994
Lower Tribunal No. 18-13130
________________
Elio Martinez, Jr., and Patricia Martinez,
Appellants,
vs.
State Farm Florida Insurance Company,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge.
Kramer, Green, Zuckerman, Greene and Buchsbaum, P.A., and Robert I.
Buchsbaum, Shawn R. Horwick and Craig M. Greene (Hollywood), for appellants.
Link & Rockenbach, P.A., and Kara Rockenbach Link and Daniel M.
Schwarz (West Palm Beach); Carlton Fields and Paul L. Nettleton, for appellee.
Before LINDSEY, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Brown v. Giffen Indus., Inc., 281 So. 2d 897, 900 (Fla. 1973)
(rebuttable presumption of mailing established through evidence of business mailing
practice); Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Alvarez, 443 So. 2d 279, 280 (Fla. 3d DCA
1983) (observing that if holding in Jarrod v. Assocs. Disc. Corp., 99 So. 2d 272, 278
(Fla. 1957), was not abrogated by Brown, it was certainly “done away with in 1979
with the enactment of Section 90.406, Florida Statutes”); Thorlton v. Nationstar
Mortg., LLC, 257 So. 3d 596, 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (finding that witness’
testimony was sufficient to create rebuttable presumption of mailing of letter where
bank was not entity that ultimately mailed it but had routine practice for submitting
default letters to third-party vendor which then mailed them and sent back proof of
mailing); CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Hoskinson, 200 So. 3d 191, 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
(finding sufficient evidence to show that letter was mailed where witness testified to
business practice of drafting letters and delivering them to mailroom for collection
by postal service); Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Kurtz, 518 So. 2d 1339, 1341 (Fla.
5th DCA 1987) (presumption especially strong where insured received other mail,
such as renewal notices).
2