24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 869a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2410MONTInsurance — Automobile — Windshield repair — Where automobile insurance policy provides that, except in emergency circumstances, insurer will only pay for damage it is able to inspect prior to repair, and neither insured nor repair shop/assignee provided insurer with notice of damage and opportunity for inspection before repairs were made, there is no coverage under policy for claim
CLEAR VISION WINDSHIELD REPAIR LLC, a/s/o Yilien Montane, Plaintiff(s), vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 16-8071 SP 05. December 21, 2016. Lourdes Simon, Judge. Counsel: Kelly Arias, for Plaintiff. Jennifer Shippole, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This Matter having come before the Court on November 28, 2016 after being properly noticed by Defendant, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, the Court finds as follows:
1. Defendant, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, issued a policy of insurance to Yilien B. Montane, which policy contained coverage for damage to the insured vehicle.
2. Plaintiff allegedly performed repairs to the insured vehicle on December 23, 2015 and filed suit seeking coverage under the policy of insurance issued by Defendant.
3. As to repairs, the subject policy of insurance states in pertinent part as follows:
“We” will only pay for damage which “we” are able to inspect prior to repairs being commenced. This shall apply unless emergency repairs are necessary to minimize further damages and/or expenses. In the event emergency repairs are effected, “we” require photographs of the damaged area(s) along with a complete itemized estimate of repair and payment receipt.
4. Defendant filed the Affidavit of Vanessa Sales in support of its Motion for Final Summary Judgment wherein Ms. Sales testified that neither the insured, Yilien B. Montane, nor the Plaintiff, CLEAR VISION WINDSHIELD REPAIR, LLC, gave notice to Defendant prior to repairs being performed. Ms. Sales testified that Defendant was not given the opportunity to and did not inspect the insured vehicle prior to the alleged repairs being commenced.
5. In fact, Ms. Sales testified that Defendant was not advised at any point prior to the filing of the lawsuit that there was damage to insured vehicle’s windshield or that it was in need of repairs.
6. Based on the complete failure of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s assignor/Defendant’s insured, Yilien Montane, to put Defendant on notice of the alleged damage and permit Defendant the opportunity to inspect the alleged damage prior to repairs being made, there is no coverage under the subject policy of insurance for Plaintiff’s claim.
7. It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment is granted. The Court withholds adjudication as to Defendant’s Request for Sanctions pursuant to Florida Statute 57.105.
