Case Law Update: Four Season Water Restoration v. Citizens, Third DCA Affirms and Cites the Duty to Protect Property After a Loss

On August 27, 2026, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation in Four Season Water Restoration a/a/o Norman Gonzalez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, No. 3D25-2056. The appellant was a water restoration company suing as the assignee of a homeowner’s policy benefits, and the appeal came from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lower Tribunal No. 20-18242-CC-23, Judge Charles Kenneth Johnson. The three judge panel of Chief Judge Scales, Judge Logue, and Judge Bokor issued a per curiam affirmance, and the opinion states that it is “[n]ot final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.”

What a Per Curiam Affirmance With Citations Tells You

The court wrote one word of disposition: “Affirmed.” It did not write out its own reasoning, and it made no findings about this homeowner’s roof, water intrusion, or repair invoices. What it did do is point to three decisions, each with a parenthetical describing the rule the panel found relevant. Those citations are the only window into the legal ground the affirmance rests on, and because the decision carries no independent analysis, it does not establish any new rule of Florida law. It is worth reading for what it signals about how a Florida appellate panel is reading post loss duties in an assigned water damage case.

The Three Propositions the Panel Cited

• Plain policy language controls. Citing Fontainebleau Fla. Hotel LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 408 So. 3d 862, 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), the panel quoted the rule that “[w]here the policy language is plain and unambiguous, no special rule of construction or interpretation applies, and the court should give the plain language in the contract the meaning it clearly expresses.” That sentence Fontainebleau itself quotes from N. Pointe Cas. Ins. Co. v. M & S Tractor Servs., Inc., 62 So. 3d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
• Failing to protect the property can prejudice the insurer. The panel added a “see also” cite to You Restorations LLC v. First Protective Ins. Co., 417 So. 3d 358, 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), whose parenthetical reads “concluding that the insured’s failure to protect the property from further damage after learning of the damage within a few weeks of a windstorm prejudiced the insurer” and states the rule the panel found relevant.
• Thinking the damage was minor is not an excuse. A “cf.” cite to Sec. First Ins. Co. v. Visca, 387 So. 3d 313, 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), observes that the insured’s duty to act on learning of the damage “is not excused simply because the insured believed the damage was not severe enough to justify filing a claim” in the language the panel quoted.

Read together, those three parentheticals describe a familiar defense posture in Florida first party property litigation: the policy says what it says, the policy imposes duties after a loss, and a delay in acting on known damage can be argued as prejudice to the carrier.

What This Means If You Have a Water Damage Claim in Florida

Nothing in this decision changes the text of any policy, and every claim turns on its own facts, its own policy wording, and its own timeline. These are practical points that the cited authorities raise for Florida homeowners and for the contractors who take assignments of benefits.

• Act on damage when you learn about it, not when it gets worse. The duty the cited cases discuss is triggered by knowledge of damage. A reasonable belief that a leak is small does not, under Visca, suspend that duty.
• Document the mitigation you actually performed. Photographs with timestamps, dry out logs, moisture readings, invoices, and the dates you first noticed water are the record that answers a prejudice argument later.
• Read your own post loss conditions. Florida homeowners policies typically require prompt notice, protecting the property from further damage, and cooperating with the carrier’s investigation. Those provisions are where these disputes are decided.
• An assignment of benefits does not upgrade the claim. A contractor suing as assignee stands in the policyholder’s shoes and inherits the same policy conditions and the same defenses the carrier could have raised against the homeowner.
• Deadlines are statutory as well as contractual. Section 627.70132, Florida Statutes, sets the time limits for property insurance claims arising from hurricane, windstorm, and other covered losses, and those limits run separately from anything in the policy.

This ruling is an affirmance of a county court judgment on the record that was before the panel. It is not a holding that assigned water claims fail, and it is not a prediction about any other case.

Case details: Four Season Water Restoration a/a/o Norman Gonzalez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, No. 3D25-2056 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 27, 2026). Per curiam affirmance. Before Scales, C.J., and Logue and Bokor, JJ. On appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lower Tribunal No. 20-18242-CC-23, Judge Charles Kenneth Johnson. Counsel of record: Cassel & Cassel, P.A., and Michael A. Cassel (Hollywood) for the appellant; Rothell Law Group, P.A., and Kristi Bergemann Rothell (Greenacres) for the appellee. Not final until disposition of any timely filed motion for rehearing. Status current as of September 5, 2026.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice. It describes a court decision as written and does not state the facts of any reader’s claim. For background on how Florida property insurance denials work, see Denied Homeowners Insurance Claim in Florida.