Mesa v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp.
In a first-party property insurance trial, the trial court allowed Citizens' corporate representative — who lacked personal knowledge — to testify about the contents and opinions in a field adjuster's report that was never admitted as a business record. The Third DCA held this was inadmissible hearsay, rejected the argument that Rule 1.310(b)(6) corporate-representative designation creates a trial hearsay exception, and found the error was not harmless because the adjuster's findings were the sole basis for the coverage denial.
Key facts
- Mesa sued Citizens Property Insurance Corp. in a first-party property insurance dispute over coverage for property damage.
- At trial, Citizens presented a corporate representative who testified about the contents and opinions in a field adjuster's report without personal knowledge of the facts, and the report was never admitted into evidence.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a useful, citable holding that the corporate-representative device under Rule 1.310(b)(6) does not license a 'voice of the company' witness to relay claim-file hearsay at trial — a practice common in insurer… — 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.