Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Arias
In a first-party homeowners water-damage case, the Third DCA reversed a final judgment for the insureds along with three partial summary judgment orders on Citizens's coverage defenses, an order denying leave to add a septic-tank back-up exclusion defense, and an order striking Citizens's engineering expert under Daubert. The court held that the engineer's inspection report created genuine issues of material fact on causation, that the trial court invented unsupported limitations on the policy's wear-and-tear and constant-or-repeated-seepage exclusions, and that striking the expert was an abuse of discretion.
Key facts
- Citizens Property Insurance Corp. sought coverage defenses in a water-damage claim brought by homeowners (Arias) under a homeowners insurance policy.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment for the insureds on Citizens's wear-and-tear and constant-or-repeated-seepage exclusions, denied Citizens leave to amend its answer to add a septic-tank back-up exclusion defense, and struck Citizens's forensic engineering expert under Daubert.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
Useful for insurers and defense counsel resisting judicial narrowing of wear-and-tear and constant-or-repeated-seepage exclusions, and for preserving expert engineering causation testimony against Daubert/section 90.702… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
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.