Zeida Vazquez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledMarch 18, 2020
Docket3D18-2601
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 18, 2020.
________________
No. 3D18-2601
Lower Tribunal No. 17-6470
________________
Zeida Vazquez,
Appellant,
vs.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation,
Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rodolfo A. Ruiz,
Judge.
Giasi Law, P.A., and Melissa A. Giasi, and Erin M. Berger (Tampa), for
appellant.
Franklin Legal Group, PA, and Jonathan D. Franklin, for appellee.
Before SALTER, SCALES, and MILLER. JJ.
PER CURIAM.
UPON CONFESSION OF ERROR
Appellant, Zeida Vazquez, challenges a final summary judgment entered
below in favor of appellee, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, in her first-
party property insurance dispute. Because “[t]o a significant extent, [Citizens’]
supporting materials were improperly authenticated,” based upon our independent
review of the record and Citizens’ commendable confession of error, we hereby
reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Larroque
v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla., 972 So. 2d 981, 982 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (citations
omitted); see Gidwani v. Roberts, 248 So. 3d 203, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
(“Because ‘only competent evidence may be considered by the court in ruling upon
a motion for summary judgment,’ a document attached to a motion for summary
judgment or a document attached to an affidavit that is not otherwise authenticated
is not competent evidence.”) (quoting Daeda v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla.,
Inc., 698 So. 2d 617, 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)); Booker v. Sarasota, Inc., 707 So. 2d
886, 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“A Florida court may not consider an unauthenticated
document in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, even where it appears that
the such document, if properly authenticated, may have been dispositive.”) (citation
omitted); see also Bifulco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 693 So. 2d 707, 709
(Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“[A] trial court, in passing upon a motion for summary
judgment, is bound by the procedural strictures inherent in Fl[orida] R[ule of] Civ[il]
P[rocedure] 1.510.”); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) (“The [summary judgment] motion . . .
2
must specifically identify any affidavits, answers to interrogatories, admissions,
depositions, and other materials as would be admissible in evidence (‘summary
judgment evidence’) on which the movant relies.”); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(e) (“Sworn
or certified copies of all documents or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit must
be attached thereto or served therewith.”).
Reversed and remanded.
3