Evidence Not Conclusions: Florida Courts Rejecting Deficient Expert Affidavits at Summary Judgment

A Florida Circuit Court has granted summary judgment in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, holding that the insured failed to produce admissible evidence that a covered peril created an opening in the roof. Without that proof, the policy’s exception to the rainwater exclusion did not apply, and the claim failed as a matter of law. This ruling is significant not because it breaks new doctrinal ground but because it reflects a disciplined application of Florida’s updated summary judgment standard. The decision shows how Courts are now willing to dispose of First-Party Property cases where the insured’s proof rests on conclusory expert opinions rather than admissible, case-specific evidence. 

In this matter the policy language is familiar. Interior rain damage is excluded, unless a covered peril first creates an opening in the building envelope. This Exception is not a minor detail, it is the insured’s burden. Florida law places the burden squarely on the insured to prove that an exception to an exclusion restores coverage. Thus the dispositive issue become narrow: Did a Covered Peril Create an opening that allowed water intrusion? If the insured cannot prove that element with admissible evidence, the claim fails. 

In this matter, the Court applied Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 as amended in 2021, which adopts the federal summary judgment framework. Under this standard, a defendant may prevail by showing an absence of evidence on an essential element. Additionally, the burden then shifts to the Plaintiff to produce admissible evidence creating a genuine issue. Here, Citizens satisfied its burden by: (1) Presenting inspection evidence showing no storm created opening; (2) Pointing out the absence of proof that any opening existed at the time of loss. Once that showing was made, the burden shifted. The case then turned entirely on the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s expert evidence. 

Plaintiffs relied primarily on an engineering affidavit submitted in opposition to summary judgment. The affidavit attempted to establish: 

• Wind-related damage to roofing components
• General mechanisms by which wind can compromise shingles
• The presence of conditions consistent with wind damage

Using these premises, the Expert concluded that wind created an opening that allowed water intrusion into the property. 

The Court having heard arguments are reviewed the filings for this summary judgment argument, rejected the expert affidavit as legally insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The reasoning is critical for Practitioners. The following are the reasons the Court ruled against Plaintiffs and their experts affidavit:

1. The expert inspected the property years after the alleged loss. The affidavit did not establish that the observed conditions existed at the time of loss or when the alleged damage occurred. Without a temporal link, the opinion could not support the causation.
2. The expert affidavit discussed: (1) creased shingles; (2) displaced roofing materials; (3) general wind damage indicators. What the expert affidavit did not do is identify: (1) a specific opening; (2) the location of that opening; (3) how that opening allowed water intrusion. Based on this the Court treated this omission as fatal. The policy requires proof of an opening not generalized roof distress.

3. There was no causal connection between the alleged wind damage and interior damage.
   1. The expert failed to connect three required steps/factors:
      1. A covered peril caused damage to the property
      2. That covered peril created an opening in the exterior/roof of the property
      3. That opening allowed water intrusion into the interior of the property.
   2. The expert relied on inference:
      1. Wind can damage roofs
      2. Damage was observed
      3. Therefore, wind created an opening
4. The experts affidavit relied on general principles rather than case specific facts. The affidavit provided industry literature, hypothetical mechanisms of damage. The Court held that general principles do not substitute for case-specific, fact based analysis tied to the property and the loss event. 
5. The Court reiterated that Conclusory Opinions are not Evidence. The Emphasized that: A conclusory opinion even from a qualified expert cannot create a genuine issue of material fact. The Affidavit’s ultimate conclusions were unsupported by: (1) Measured data; (2) Verified historical conditions; (3) Admissible corroborating evidence.
6. The Court also ruled that there were admissibility deficiencies under Rule 1.510 such as: (1) Materials relied upon were not shown to be admissible; (2) Opinions lacked a reliable factual foundation. Under the updated rule, evidence must be capable of admission at trial. Unsupported assumption and hearsay do not quality. 

The Court Concluded the following and ruled in favor of Defendant:

1. Plaintiff failed to present admissible evidence of a peril created opening.
2. No reasonable jury could find coverage based on the record.
3. Summary Judgment was appropriate as a matter of law. 

Highlights for Defense arguments in Florida:

1. Defendants can win by identifying and bringing evidentiary gaps to the Courts view and forcing Plaintiffs to produce admissible proof. This backs the notion that Courts are no longer required to send weak cases to the jury. 
2. Expert opinions must be precise and grounded: The Expert must tie their findings to the Date of Loss. The Expert must Identify a specific opening. The Expert must explain how water entered through that opening. As the Court ruled here, anything less by an expert is insufficient.
3. This Ruling further bolsters that Later Inspection are a vulnerability for both Plaintiffs and Defendants. Opinions formed years after the Date of loss must bridge the temporal gap with reliable evidence. Without that connection/bridge, these opinions will/should fail. 
4. Another issue bolstered by this decision is, Inference stacking will not survive summary judgment. Courts will not allow a Plaintiff or their expert to state wind occurred on a certain date, damage was observed at the property, interior was issues/staining observed therefore opening in the exterior/roof is assumed and coverage under the policy is triggered. Each step requires independent evidentiary support. 

CONCLUSION

The Court’s decision reinforces a simple rule: no admissible evidence of a peril-created opening means no coverage. Florida’s updated summary judgment standard ensures that cases lacking proof do not reach a Jury. For Practitioners on both sides, the lesson is unmistakable. The Battle is won or lost at the evidentiary level. 

Thank you for your time, and please inform us if you have any questions. We will keep you promptly informed of all developments. 

Sincerely,

SALMON, SALMON, LABBE & DEHNE, P.A.

Vincent Cano, Esq.