Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Raymond H. Duke Enterprises, Inc., 135 So.3d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA April 14, 2014).October 24, 2014 | Category: Subro News and Cases
After paying a homeowner’s water damage claim, the insurer filed a subrogation action alleging that the damage was caused by the defendant’s negligent installation of a built-in coffee maker during its renovation of the house. The defendant presented affidavit testimony that it did not install the coffee maker. In opposition, the insurer filed the affidavit of the homeowner, who stated the defendant was the only company hired to perform renovation work, the defendant was the only entity with access and/or control of the premises other than the homeowner, the homeowner was not living there during the renovation, the homeowner dropped off a coffee maker at the house during the renovation, the homeowner did not install the coffee maker, and a water line was installed for the built-in coffee maker. The trial court determined this did not create a factual dispute sufficient to reach a jury, and granted summary judgment for the defendant. The appellate court disagreed, stating that “the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from [the homeowner’s] affidavit is that [the defendant] installed the coffee maker during the renovation.” Because of the factual conflict on the issue of installation, the case was returned to the trial court. Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Raymond H. Duke Enterprises, Inc., 135 So.3d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA April 14, 2014).