Trial court erred in entering final summary judgment as insurer was deprived of its entitlement to due process by not receiving proper notice and a reasonable amount of time to respond.

This case involves the trial court entering a judgment that went outside the grounds of the requested summary judgment. In the underlying case, the insured filed a motion for summary judgment, making arguments regarding post-loss obligations, notice, policy compliance and Universal’s affirmative defenses. Universal failed to respond to the motion, and the trial court granted final summary judgment. 

On appeal, the court determined that, while the insured’s motions addressed certain facts that were undisputed, he failed to argue that there was no genuine issue of material fact that he suffered a loss during the policy period or as to the amount of damages. The court cited to Booth v. Hicks, stating, “[i]t is well-settled that a trial court violates due process and commits reversible error when it grants a part relief that the party did not request.” 301 So.3d 369, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). The court noted it was “reversible error to enter a summary judgment on a ground that was not raised with particularity in the motion,” citing McLlenan v. Cypress Chase N. Condo, No. 4 Ass’n., 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1197 (Fla. 4th DCA, June 5, 2024) (quoting Alexopoulos v. Gordon Hargrove & James, P.A., 109 So.3d 248, 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)). 

The court found that, since it is the insured’s burden to initially prove the insured property suffered a loss while the policy was in effect and the insured failed to address his burden, as well as his damages, in his motion for summary judgment, the trial court erred in entering final summary judgment as Universal was deprived of its entitlement to due process by not receiving proper notice and a reasonable amount of time to respond. The case was reversed and remanded to the trial court. 

_{Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – September 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}