Avatar Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Maria De Caires
In a first-party homeowners breach-of-contract trial, the insured never introduced the policy into evidence, and the insurer moved for directed verdict on that basis. The Third DCA affirmed denial of that motion — holding the insurer waived the point through its pleadings, discovery admissions of coverage, and failure to object to the court's introductory jury instruction stating the policy's validity was not at issue — and affirmed the directed verdict establishing breach. But it reversed the directed verdict on damages because the insurer elicited significant conflicting testimony on cross-examination of the insured's own witnesses, requiring a new trial on damages.
Key facts
- Avatar Property and Casualty Insurance Company, an insurer, defended a first-party homeowners breach-of-contract claim brought by Maria De Caires, an insured, in a trial where the insured sought payment of insurance benefits for a covered loss.
- The insured failed to introduce the insurance policy itself into evidence at trial, and the insurer moved for a directed verdict on that basis, arguing the policy's existence had not been proven.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
Useful on both sides of first-party property trials: plaintiffs can cite it to defeat the common 'policy not in evidence' directed-verdict argument where the insurer has admitted coverage, and defendants can cite it to… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.