Christopher Sabater - Vernis & Bowling

Christopher Sabater, Esq.
Department Managing Attorney
Vernis & Bowling of Miami, P.A. 1680 N.E. 135th Street Miami, FL 33181
Phone: (305) 895-3035
Email: CSabater@Florida-Law.com
Fax: (305) 892-1260
Website: www.national-law.com
V-Card Email

Verdicts and Dispositions

Artigas v. FIGA
Christopher Sabater and law clerk, Nikolos Reinson (Miami, FL) (Property Damage) obtained Partial Summary Judgment in the State Court of Miami Dade County, Florida. Plaintiffs were seeking to recover attorney’s fees/costs against Defendant on a paid property claim.

The Plaintiffs filed suit against the carrier for breach of contract, claiming that they sustained property damage after Hurricane Irma. The carrier investigated the claim and opened coverage for the property damage. During litigation, the Plaintiffs and the carrier almost settled the claim. However, before the settlement was finalized, the carrier became insolvent, and the claim was taken over by Florida Insurance Guarantee Association (“FIGA”).

The Defense argued that the Plaintiffs’ claim was covered, and FIGA did not deny the claim. Therefore, this type of claim would not entitle Plaintiffs to recoverable attorney’s fees/costs. Section 631.70 of the Florida Statutes provides that attorneys’ fees shall not be applicable to any claim presented to FIGA, except where FIGA denies a covered claim by affirmative action other than delay. Moreover, FIGA does not stand in the shoes of prior insolvent carriers. FIGA is a separate entity that can choose to bind itself to the actions of the prior carrier or can make its own defense when it takes over a claim. A Plaintiff cannot bind FIGA to the actions of a prior insolvent carrier simply because FIGA gets substituted as the party defendant.

The court granted the motion and entered partial judgment in favor of the Defense.
Rodriguez, Carmen & Baez, Cesar v Citizens
Christopher Sabater (Miami, FL) (Property) obtained Summary Judgment in a late notice Hurricane Irma (2017) first-party property insurance claim against Citizens. The claim was not reported until January 8, 2020. During the claim investigation, Citizens sent out a Reservation of Rights Letter and 2 Request for Information (RFI) Letters requesting documentation that would support the alleged cause of loss/date of loss. The Insureds never responded to the RFI Letters. Moreover, none of the provided documentation predated 2020. Citizens denied the claim for prejudice because of the late reporting and failure to respond to the RFI Letters.

The Insureds filed a Breach of Contract complaint. During litigation, the Insureds were deposed, and they admitted they knew about the damage back in 2017, right after the hurricane. The Insureds further testified that they did not hire a water mitigation company and that they performed repairs prior to providing notice of the claim to Citizens. The Insureds claimed they did not have any receipts from the repairs and there were no photographs taken prior to the repair alterations. Thereafter, we filed our Motion for Summary Judgement (MSJ) for Prejudice based: 1) Late Reporting, 2) Failure to Respond to the RFI Letters, and 3) Conducting Repairs prior to notice of the claim and not documenting the alleged damage prior to conducting repairs. Plaintiff filed a Response to our Motion for Summary Judgement that was supported by the affidavit of Engineer Grant Renne. The judge agreed that this case similar to Perez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 343 So. 3d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).
Bernal v Citizens
Christopher Sabater (Miami, FL) (Property) obtained Summary Judgment in a late notice Hurricane Irma (2017) first-party property insurance claim against Citizens. The claim was not reported until March 24, 2020. During the claim investigation, Citizens sent out Reservation of Rights Letter and 3 Request for Information (RFI) Letters requesting documentation that would support the alleged cause of loss/date of loss. The Insureds never responded to the RFI Letters. Moreover, none of the provided documentation predated 2020. Citizens denied the claim for prejudice because of the late reporting and failure to respond to the RFI Letters.

The Insureds filed Breach of Contract complaint. During litigation, we deposed the Insureds and they admitted to hiring a repairman to conduct repairs prior to providing notice of the claim to Citizens. There were no photographs taken prior to the repair alteration. Thereafter, we filed our Motion for Summary Judgement (MSJ) for Prejudice based: 1) Late Reporting, 2) Failure to Respond to the RFI Letters, and 3) Conducting Repairs prior to notice of the claim and not documenting the alleged damage prior to conducting repairs. Plaintiff filed a Response to our Motion for Summary Judgement that was supported by the affidavit of Engineer Harold Charles. The judge heard our MSJ and granted it; the judge agreed that this case similar to Perez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 343 So. 3d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).

Areas Of Practice

First and Third Party Property and Casualty Claims

Bar & Court Admission

Florida Bar

Education

Graduate:
Florida International University College of Law, Juris Doctor
Undergraduate:
Florida State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science
Honors: magna cum laude

Christopher Sabater earned a Bachelor of Science, magna cum laude, in Political Science from Florida State University in 2012. He also earned a minor in Business and a certificate in Markets and Institutions (Economics). He went on to earn his Juris Doctor from Florida International University College of Law in 2015.

He began his legal career representing homeowners with their insurance claims at a First Party Property Plaintiff’s firm. Subsequently, he joined a First and Third Party Property Insurance Defense Firm defending insurance carriers with their residential and commercial property claims.

Christopher has successfully argued motions for summary judgment, dismissals with prejudice, and special set evidentiary hearings, with favorable outcomes for insurance defense clients.

Christopher is dedicated to understanding the complexities and application of First Property Law. He works diligently to help his clients navigate through the intricacies of each case. By focusing on the early recognition and mitigation of legal flashpoints, Christopher provides his clients with the most cost-effective and successful management plan to evaluate how they would like to proceed with their case.

Footer