Deny or avoid-you make the call.

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 51 NUMBER 19

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF MAY 15, 2026

A GENERAL DENIAL IS NOT AN UNPLED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Nuce Acoustic Ceilings & Drywall, Inc. v. DeLesline Construction, Inc., 51 Fla. L. Weekly D953 (Fla. May 8, 2026):

While the facts aren’t especially important here, the court explained the important distinction between an “affirmative defense” and a “general denial.”

An affirmative defense is a “confession-and-avoidance;” a general denial is not.

When a defendant “denies” a pled fact, that defendant denies an ultimate fact that is set forth in the pleading.

Affirmative defenses, though, “confess and avoid,” because they admit the allegations of the plea to which they are directed, and then allege additional facts that avoid the legal effect of the confession.

IT IS ERROR FOR A COURT TO USE A MOTION IN LIMINE AS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT—MOTION IN LIMINE ORDER EXCLUDING “ALL DAMAGES EVIDENCE” EFFECTIVELY AND IMPERMISSIBLY DISPOSED OF THE CASE BEFORE TRIAL

Greenaker v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 51 Fla. L. Weekly D948 (Fla. May 8, 2026):

The plaintiffs sued the defendant insurer for storm damage to their home in November 2020. They alleged that they provided an estimate documenting covered damages which the insurer refused to pay.

The policy provided replacement cost coverage but required the insurer to initially pay at least actual cash value, then pay remaining amounts as the work was performed and the expenses incurred.

The defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the plaintiff’s evidence of both replacement cost value and actual cash value, arguing that the lack of completed repairs undermined replacement cost evidence. The defendant further argued that the plaintiffs had no admissible proof of actual cash value, because their estimate was only for “replacement cost.”

The defendant sought to exclude this evidence through a motion in limine, which the trial court granted. However, the court then entered final judgment for the defendant, concluding that because the plaintiffs had no proof of damages under the proper measure, judgment against them was warranted.

The appellate court reversed. It found there is no recognized procedure that authorizes the entry of final judgment based on a pretrial ruling in limine. A motion in limine is to prevent improper evidence from being mentioned at trial, and it becomes improper when it is used to do more than exclude evidence, effectively functioning as a substitute for summary judgment or other recognized dispositive procedures.