INSURANCE OBLIGATION. $______ VERDICT

• Pages: 12-12

INSURANCE OBLIGATION

$47,500 VERDICT

Insurance obligation – Defendant insurer failed to

pay on valid claim for damages from peril –

Defendant asserts plaintiff’s claimed damages

were not caused by covered peril and thus

excluded under policy.

Broward County, FL

In this insurance obligation case, the plaintiff

asserted that the defendant insurer breached a

homeowner’s policy of insurance by refusing to

pay any amounts necessary to restore the

plaintiff’s property to its pre-loss condition, and

that the breach resulted in damages. The

defendant denied that they breached the

insurance contract and denied that the damages

were caused by a covered peril.

The plaintiff owned a home located at 10451 Northwest

24th Street in Sunrise that was insured by the defendant

homeowners. On September 10, 2017, while the policy

was in full force and effect, the home sustained wind

and water damages as a result of Hurricane Irma, a

peril covered under the insurance policy. The plaintiff

opened a claim with the defendant. The plaintiff timely

notified the defendant of the losses and otherwise per-

formed all conditions precedent to entitle them to cov-

erage and benefits under their policy.

The plaintiff maintained that the defendant failed to

properly indemnify the plaintiff for the losses stemming

from the covered peril. The plaintiff presented the testi-

mony of a licensed professional engineer, who con-

ducted an inspection of the plaintiff’ property, and a

review of meteorological data from the date in ques-

tion. The plaintiff’s expert asserted that the given weather

conditions and wind speed, combined with the dam-

age he observed on inspection, were consistent with the

type of damages seen in a high-wind event. The plain-

tiff’s expert noted that the asphalt shingle roof was in-

stalled in 2005 and would not have sustained normal

wear and tear that would cause the damage seen in

the roof. The plaintiff’s expert asserted that the winds as-

sociated with Hurricane Irma caused uplift of shingles

and loss of granules which, in turn, created an opening

in the roof which allowed water intrusion into the home

and garage.

The defendant maintained that there was no direct

physical damage to the roof caused by windstorm but

was caused by one or more excluded causes of loss,

such as wear, tear and deterioration, and there was no

peril-created opening in the roof or walls that allowed

water into the interior. Thus, the defendants argued, the

claim was excluded from coverage under the policy.

The jury found that the plaintiff proved by the greater

weight of the evidence that the damage incurred at his

property was the result of a peril insured against and oc-

curred during the policy period. The jury found that the

defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff did not pro-

vide prompt notice of the loss claimed, nor that they

failed to provide all requested records and documents.

The jury found that the defendant had breached the in-

surance contract and awarded damages in the

amount of $47,500 less the hurricane deductible of

$4,606, for a net recovery of $42,894.

REFERENCE

Amaro vs. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Case

no. CACE20005621; Judge John B. Bowman, 03-31-22.

Attorney for plaintiff: Leo A. Manzanilla of M.S.P.G.

Law Group, P.A. in Coral Gables, FL. Attorneys for

defendant: Teresa C. Taglianetti and Bart Cozad of

Derrevere Stevens Black & Cozad in West Palm

Beach, FL.

$12,000 VERDICT

Insurance obligation – Plaintiff’s claim damages

due to water backup in kitchen of one unit of

duplex property including costs to repair drain

that services both units – Defendant argues it paid

plaintiffs for covered damages but those were

limited to damages where backup occurred.

Miami-Dade County, FL

In this insurance obligation case, the plaintiffs

asserted that the defendant insurer breached a

homeowner’s policy of insurance by refusing to

pay any amounts necessary to restore the

plaintiff’s property to its pre-loss condition, and

that the breach resulted in damages. The

defendant denied breaching the contract and

claimed that the damage to the interior of the

plaintiffs’ property was caused by a backup in the

kitchen in the back unit of the duplex, for which

covered losses were limited to the kitchen of the

back unit.

On September 7, 2018, the plaintiffs’ duplex residence

located at 10962 SW 6th Street in Miami experienced an

accidental escape of water from a deteriorated drain

line which was part of the residence’s plumbing system.

The escape of water from the drain line caused physical

property damage to the plaintiffs’ residence and con-

tents. The plaintiffs maintained that they provided the

defendant with timely notice of the loss and complied

with all conditions required by the subject policy. The

defendant admitted coverage for the subject loss and

made a payment. However, the plaintiff argued that the

defendant breached its contract of insurance by failing

to initially pay at least the actual cash value of the

plaintiffs’ loss less the applicable deductible.

Volume 32, Issue 6, June 2022

VERDICTS BY CATEGORY 12

Subscribe Now