Verdicts by Practice Area: First Party Property
A hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment was set for February 2023, with trial set for March 2023. Based on the Motion for Summary Judgment, combined with the well-documented inability of Plaintiff to comply with discovery, Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the matter with no money paid by Defendant. Read More.
After a three (3) day jury trial, on December 15, 2022, Otto Espino and Jonah Kaplan obtained a full defense verdict on behalf of Universal Property and Casualty for a covered claim in a First-Party Property matter styled Laura Arroyo v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co.
The lawsuit arose, due to a an alleged water leak sustained by Universal’s Insured (Laura Arroy) to a hallway bathroom that allegedly damaged laminate flooring in the bathroom, hallway and the adjoining bedrooms. After receipt of the claim, Universal adjusted the claim and extended coverage. Prior to the lawsuit, Universal paid Plaintiff for Coverage A Dwelling in the gross amount of $16,168.73. During the pre-suit claim adjustment period, Plaintiff provided a Sworn Proof of Loss (“SPOL’) indicating a demand of $67,665.08. At trial, Plaintiff presented another estimate for a reduced amount. The Plaintiff relied upon this contractor as her damage expert.
The evidence was presented that Universal complied with the Policy payment conditions by issuing payment for the full amount of damages. Mr. Espino successfully argued that the Insured/Plaintiff was not entitled to any further compensation under the Policy. After two hours of deliberations, the jury fully agreed and entered a full defense verdict. Read More.
Tampa Senior Partner Jeffrey Benson, Esq., obtained summary judgment in Citrus County in matter styled Garcia v. Pittman. Plaintiff claimed he was crushed by a falling tree branch on Defendant’s property and that defendant destroyed the evidence of the tort afterwards by cleaning up her yard.
After extensive discovery and briefing, the court denied Plaintiff’s spoliation claim going through a three prong analysis. First, Plaintiff had not proven that actual evidence of a tort ever existed, or, if it did exist that the specific tree branch that hit Plaintiff could have ever been identified. Second, the court ruled Defendant did not have a duty to preserve the tree debris. The court adopted our argument that Citrus County code required Defendant to clean up her yard. Third, the court found no viable theory of liability against Defendant. Plaintiff did NOT show that cleaning up the accident site deprived him of the ability to prove his case (because he never had a case). It was also noted that there is no indication Defendant acted in bad faith, as she called her insurer to investigate the scene before she hired a professional tree company to remove the branches.
The court found “there is not even a mere scintilla of evidence to suggest [Defendant] failed to maintain the trees…” and that “absent sanctions for spoliation, Plaintiff cannot meet his burden to establish the accident occurred due to [Defendant’s] failure to use reasonable care in maintaining her property.” Further, Defendant had no duty to warn because the dangerous condition was known to Plaintiff and was open and obvious to him. The trial court’s ruling was affirmed by the Fifth District Court of Appeal. Read More.
Senior Associate Tabitha Jackson, Esq., and her team in Tallahassee recently won a Motion to Strike Attorney’s Fees under § 627.401, Florida Statutes in matter styled Peter Harmon & Debra Harmon v. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance. In Florida, you may sue for indemnity and also fees. Though, in the event an insurance policy was delivered to an insured out of the State of Florida, an insured is prohibited from seeking fees. This is helpful when an insured sues for damage to a vacation home or second home, though the applicable insurance policy was delivered and issued to the insured at their homestead place of residence (outside of Florida). Here, Frontline had delivered the applicable policy to New Hampshire, for an insured property located in Florida. Though, because the policy was issued and delivered to New Hampshire, the insureds were prohibited from seeking fees under § 627.428, Florida Statutes.
Junior Partner Matthew Wendler, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in First Party Property matter on January 2, 2022, the eve of trial, putting an end to the litigation that had been ongoing for over two years. The complaint in Bobbili v. Defendant Insurance Company was filed in July 2019, following Defendant’s denial of the insureds’ claim for water damage and mold on the basis of long-term leakage or seepage. Before suit was filed, Defendant was unable to determine the specific cause and origin of the loss because the insureds opted not to retain a contractor to cut out the affected drywall to repair the system or appliance from which the leak emanated. After suit was filed, Plaintiffs did not mitigate their damages: they did not retain a contractor to fix the leak, so it continued to cause damage to their home.
Following the depositions of the plaintiffs’ general contractor and engineer, Defendant timely filed a motion for summary judgment. Due to the court’s unilateral cancelation of the special-set hearing on the motion, Defendant was unable to have it heard prior to trial. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion included an affidavit signed by one of the plaintiffs crafted in a manner to create a factual issue for trial, to suggest that the loss resulted from a faulty December 2017 repair such that all ensuing damages relating to the March 2018 claim would be covered under the policy.
When the parties exchanged exhibits, Plaintiffs produced two photographs that had not previously been produced in discovery. Defendant suspected that the photographs were not taken in December 2017 (as suggested in the affidavit used to oppose the motion for summary judgment) and requested Plaintiffs to produce the original photographs so the metadata could be analyzed. Upon receipt of the original photographs, produced two days before trial, the metadata showed that the photographs were taken almost a year before what had been represented in the affidavit. Upon discovery of this information, Defendant informed Plaintiffs and offered to not pursue fees and costs from the long-expired nominal proposals for settlement if Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed the notice of dismissal with prejudice on January 2, 2022, the eve of trial, putting an end to the litigation that had been ongoing for over two years.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Ramon Fernandez v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for his claim for damage to his property resulting from Hurricane Irma. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, maintaining the position that Plaintiff failed to comply with his duty to provide prompt notice of the claim, and that its investigation of the claim was prejudiced by Plaintiff not reporting his claim until two years after the loss. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff dismissed the case.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Rene Su v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for his claim for damage to his property resulting from a roof leak. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, based on the insurance policy’s exclusion for damage caused by wear and tear, and the lack of any evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rain water to enter the property. Defendant also filed its Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Plaintiff’s Expert, arguing that the affidavit was speculative, conclusory, and legally insufficient. Just before the hearing on Defendant’s Motions, Plaintiff dismissed the case.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained summary judgment in the matter styled Virginia Baist v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for her claim for damage to her property resulting from a plumbing leak in her kitchen. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, based on the insurance policy’s exclusion for damage caused by constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water. Upon receipt of the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew from the case, and Plaintiff proceeded pro se. Finding an absence of evidence to support Plaintiff’s case, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Sue Demmings v. Defendant Insurance Company filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for her claim for damage to her property resulting from Hurricane Irma. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting the argument that Plaintiff failed to comply with her duty to provide prompt notice of the claim, and that its investigation of the claim was prejudiced by Plaintiff not reporting her claim until two years after the loss. Just before the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff dismissed the case.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matterstyled Emergency Mold & Water Remediation, LLC a/a/o Betsy Fernandez & Alejandro Marquez v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the purported assignment of benefits was invalid and unenforceable, as the insured had no benefits left to assign at the time it was executed, and thus Plaintiff lacked standing. On the eve of the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff dismissed the case.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Miriam Muniz v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for her claim for damage to her property resulting from Tropical Storm Gordon. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, based on the insurance policy’s exclusion for damage caused by wear and tear, and the lack of any evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rain water to enter the property. Upon receipt of the motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled South Florida Restoration Service a/a/o Kendale Woods North Condominium Association v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to more than $140,000 in services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, and served Plaintiff with its Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, arguing that the purported assignment failed to comply with Florida Statute Section 627.7152, was therefore invalid and unenforceable, and thus Plaintiff lacked standing to file suit. Upon receipt of the motions, Plaintiff dismissed the case.
On January 12, 2022, Miami Senior Partner, Jorge Padilla, Esq., secured final summary judgment in a first-party insurance case styled Projekt Property Restoration, Inc., a/a/o Yessenia & Andres Arias v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff, the assignee of the named insured, made a claim against the insured’s homeowner’s insurance carrier arising out of water damage mitigation services rendered in connection with a loss that reportedly occurred as a result of Hurricane Irma. Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim due to the absence of any evidence of wind damage to the home.
Seeking substantial damages, including attorney’s fees costs, Plaintiff alleged that the denial of their claim constituted a breach of the insured’s homeowner’s insurance policy. By employing an aggressive discovery approach, Mr. Padilla was able to get Plaintiff’s causation expert stricken pursuant to Daubert.. After securing that ruling, Mr. Padilla filed a motion for final summary judgment. In response to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs argued that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a material issue of fact – issues that were thoroughly briefed by Mr. Padilla and ultimately rejected by the Court. Mr. Padilla is now pursuing a claim for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to a proposal for settlement that he served early in the litigation.
Verdict of $125,918.63 ACV - April 21, 2022 - Three-Day Jury Trial in Lee County.
Fort Myers Senior Partner Patrick Boland, Esq., Senior Associate Brittany Cocchieri, Esq., and Fort Lauderdale Managing Partner William Peterfriend, Esq., obtained a favorable result in a Hurricane Irma property claim for damages to a property located in Fort Myers, Florida. The matter styled Joe L. Pressler v. Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company involved a condemned property due to Hurricane Irma damage and pre-existing damage, as well as Plaintiff’s failure to conduct timely and adequate repairs after Hurricane Irma. The Defense was successful in having the trial issues limited to damages under Coverages A (Dwelling) and B (Other Structures) only, though Plaintiff was originally claiming damages under Coverages C (Personal Property) and D (Additional Living Expenses) as well. The Defense successfully had the claims under Coverages C and D abated, due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely provide any documentation in support of those claims until the month of trial. This significantly lessened the potential exposure at trial for our client, as before those claims were abated, Plaintiff’s demand was significantly more than what Plaintiff ultimately asked for at trial for Coverages A and B. At trial for Coverages A and B, Plaintiff asked for $317,450.38.
The case was tried over three days before Chief Judge Michael McHugh in Lee County. Our client, Tower Hill, insured the Plaintiff’s property at the time of Hurricane Irma. Plaintiff timely reported a claim for Hurricane Irma damage to Tower Hill, but was thereafter unresponsive and failed to maintain communication with Tower Hill, forcing Tower Hill to eventually close the claim due to inactivity and unresponsiveness. Tower Hill later re-opened the claim on its own volition, and ultimately issued a $100,667.24 check to Plaintiff for his property damages, after removal of recoverable depreciation at $35,288.70 and the applicable hurricane deductible of $5,100. Plaintiff received but did not endorse the check, later claiming a satisfied lienholder was incorrectly listed as a payee and the check amount was not enough for his damages. However, Plaintiff never advised Tower Hill of any issue or disagreement with the check amount or payees, and Plaintiff ultimately held onto the check for years after receiving it while the property continued to deteriorate to the point Lee County condemned the home.
The Defense did not dispute that the property was damaged by Hurricane Irma, but argued that the extent of the damages sustained was exacerbated by the Plaintiff’s failure to do anything with the $100,667.24 check he admitted at trial to receiving. Plaintiff also admitted at trial that despite receiving the check, he never advised Tower Hill of any disagreement he had with the amount and never advised Tower Hill that he could not cash the check because it listed a satisfied lienholder. Plaintiff also admitted at trial that it was the lienholder’s fault – not Tower Hill’s – for not timely filing the appropriate documentation regarding the satisfaction. Plaintiff also admitted that he never advised Tower Hill at any time that the lien was satisfied, despite his policy and the payment letter clearly requesting he advise Tower Hill if any of the lienholders listed are inaccurate. More than two years passed after Plaintiff received the check but before he filed a lawsuit against Tower Hill. At no point during those two-plus years did Plaintiff communicate with Tower Hill or request the check be re-issued so he could complete repairs to his property. All parties’ experts agreed at trial that the damages significantly worsened over time.
The Defense also argued that the Plaintiff’s roof had pre-existing damage in the form of visible holes and depressions in the roof, and that the roof of this property was by no means in pristine let alone satisfactory condition. This was argued to illustrate the pre-loss condition of the property, as a property insurance policy only requires the insurer to put the property back in its pre-loss condition after a covered loss. Plaintiff at trial requested an amount not only in excess of policy limits but also in excess of what the property pre-loss was worth based on the poor condition of the roof. The Defense called the Plaintiff’s neighbor as a witness who testified that she has lived across the street from the Plaintiff for several years and saw the hole in the roof every single day. The neighbor testified that the hole in the roof significantly grew in size over time and existed long before Hurricane Irma. The neighbor also testified that she never saw any roof repairs done prior to Hurricane Irma – which was an issue, as Plaintiff argued repairs were completed just prior to Hurricane Irma. The Court did not allow the Defense to call a representative from Lee County Code Enforcement as a witness to testify regarding the pre-loss condition of the property or the several ongoing code violations the Plaintiff has received for his property for years before Hurricane Irma.
Opposing counsel asked the jury in closing argument to award Plaintiff $317,450.38 total for damages under Coverage A - Dwelling and Coverage B - Other Structures ($242.19 for a light post on the property), for which the limits of coverage under the policy are $255,000.00 and $5,100.00 respectively. Ultimately the jury returned a verdict finding the total replacement cost value of damages to the Plaintiff’s property under Coverages A and B combined to be $153,125.80, and applicable depreciation to be $27,207.17. Based on the jury’s factual findings, the actual cash value of damages to the Plaintiff’s property is calculated to be $125,918.63. The Defense has filed a post-trial Motion to Determine Verdict Reductions or Application of Set-Offs, which is still pending before the Court. Read more.
Miami Junior Partner Karma Hall, Esq., obtained a voluntary dismissal in a first-party breach of contract action in matter styled Escalona v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The matter was brought by a named insured following denial of a plumbing claim. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff lacked evidence of compliance with policy post-lost conditions. Rather than proceed on the merits of the Motion for Final Summary Judgment, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit for breach of contract. Read More.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained partial summary judgment followed by a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Diana Carrasco Landauer v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for her claim for damage to her property resulting from a balcony/window leak. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, maintaining the position that the interior damage caused by rain was not covered by the policy as there was no evidence that the rain water entered the property through a peril created opening. In response to the motion, despite Plaintiff having testified that the claimed damage was the result of rain water entering her property, Plaintiff attempted to change the cause of loss from a balcony/window leak to a plumbing leak, filing an affidavit signed by a supposed expert in support of this new theory. Mr. Perez then secured partial summary judgment in favor of Defendant, as to any damages claimed by Plaintiff resulting from rain, and sought the deposition of Plaintiff’s supposed expert, seeking the basis for the opinion asserted in his affidavit. Just before that deposition, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Water Dryout, LLC a/a/o James Battaglia v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, and its Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, arguing that Plaintiff lacked standing, as the purported assignment was invalid, and a misrepresentation.
Defendant’s motions were based on an affidavit executed by the insured, attesting to the fact that the signature on the purported assignment was not his, that he did not sign any contract with the Plaintiff, and that he did not even hire the Plaintiff to perform any services at his property. Just before the hearing on Defendant’s motions, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled General Contractors of Central Florida a/a/o Nelfrad Similien v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Following the deposition of the insured, during which Mr. Perez secured favorable testimony in support of Defendant’s position that the damage at issue was the result of constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled National Water Restoration a/a/o Elizabeth Phillip and Andre Vulcain v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Following the deposition of the insured, during which Mr. Perez secured favorable testimony in support of Defendant’s position that the damage at issue was the result of faulty, inadequate or defective workmanship and repair, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal in the matter styled 911 Restoration, Inc. a/a/o Cutler Venture, LLC v. Citizens Property Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant served Plaintiff with its Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, arguing that the loss, an alleged plumbing leak, was not a covered cause of loss specifically enumerated in the named perils insurance policy, and thus Plaintiff’s claim was frivolous in nature. Upon receipt of the motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Emergency Remediation Services, LLC a/a/o Luis Mesa v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, presenting the argument that Plaintiff failed to provide notice of its purported assignment prior to filing suit, that Defendant’s contractual obligations are not triggered until the moment notice of the assignment is provided, and that it could not be said that Defendant had denied a valid claim which could have given rise to a breach of contract action. On the eve of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled William Guy v. Tower Hill Select Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for his claim for damage to his property resulting from Hurricane Irma. Defendant served Plaintiff with its Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, arguing that the loss was expressly excluded by a policy endorsement, and thus Plaintiff’s claim was frivolous in nature. Upon receipt of the motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled So. Fla. Water Restoration, Inc. a/a/o Francisco Paris v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, making the argument that the insured had not complied with the post-loss duties imposed by the policy, by failing to submit to an examination under oath, and as an assignee standing in the shoes of the assignor, Plaintiff was not entitled to the recovery of any benefits under the insurance policy. Following receipt of the motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Bernard Etienne v. Citizens Property Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by not paying the full amount of damages sustained to his property from Hurricane Irma. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, maintaining the position that Plaintiff failed to comply with the insurance policy’s appraisal provision. On the eve of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled The Restoration Team a/a/o Yania Padilla v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, making the argument that the services rendered by Plaintiff, which were performed 17 months after the date of loss, did not constitute necessary emergency measures, and were therefore not covered under the insurance policy. Following receipt of the motion, and just before the deposition of its corporate representative, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal in the matter styled Besner Sanon v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for his claim for damage to his property resulting from a plumbing leak in the kitchen. Defendant maintained its position that the loss was excluded from coverage pursuant to the insurance policy’s provision pertaining to damage caused by constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water, and the applicable anti-concurrent cause provision. On the eve of trial, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Junior Partner Karma Hall, Esq., and Junior Partner Justin Schwerling, Esq., obtained a Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice in a First Party Breach of Contract Action brought by an Assignee water restoration company, under an Assignment by the named insured. In the case, styled Express Damage Restoration, LLC A/A/O Ivan Williams, v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Plaintiff contended that services provided under the assignment of benefits were covered. Defendant filed a Motion for Final Summary Judgment, arguing that Plaintiff lacked evidence to meet its burden of proof on the Policy’s peril created opening provision. Rather than proceed on the merits of the Motion for Final Summary Judgment, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice its claim for breach of contract. Read more
Senior Associate Lauren Wages, Esq., obtained a Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice in a matter styled Xpress Restoration Inc. a/a/o Yleana Ferrera v. Citizens. We filed a motion for summary judgment based on the pre-suit payment of the $3,000 reasonable emergency measures limit under the policy for accidental discharge or overflow of water from within the plumbing system. Plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice on the eve of our hearing on the motion for summary judgment as Plaintiff was unable to provide any summary judgment evidence showing that the limit was inapplicable. Read more
In matter styled Jesus Marisol Gamarra v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Junior Partners Jeremy Fischler, Esq., and Matthew Wendler, Esq., convinced Plaintiff and the Property Law Advocates (formerly The Strems Law Firm), to settle a roof damage claim for $500.00, inclusive of attorney’s fees and costs, after nearly four (4) years of litigation. The matter involved an allegation that the Plaintiff suffered wind damage at her Broward County property in February, 2017. After the claim was inspected by a field adjuster, it was determined that there was no wind damage to the property, and the claim was denied. The Strems Law Firm immediately filed suit, and to avoid summary judgment retained an engineer to claim that there was wind damage to the roof. Plaintiff’s water mitigation company also retained an expert to assert that there was wind damage to the roof. Plaintiff testified, as most Insureds do, that she noticed damage to her property and contacted the appropriate people to assist her with the claim. However, after diligently uncovering that Plaintiff withheld pertinent information in the policy application and during litigation, we persuaded Plaintiff to dismiss the claim for nominal damages. Read more
Partner Jonah Kaplan, Esq., recently obtained full Summary Judgment in a First-Party Property matter styled Timothy and Dorothy Maxwelll v. Centauri. The matter stemmed from a homeowner’s claim for water damage from a plumbing loss. Plaintiffs were seeking in excess of $200,000. Prior to this lawsuit, Centauri issued payment in full in the amount of $10,000 to the Plaintiffs for the alleged loss based on a Limited Water Damage Coverage Endorsement. The Court found that as a matter of law, there is no ambiguity in the Policy and Plaintiffs are only owed $10,000. The Policy contained a Water Damage Exclusion Endorsement, which the Court found to exclude all of the direct and indirect damages related to the plumbing loss. The Limited Water Damage Coverage Endorsement (CSH FL LWD 08 14) only provides for $10,000 in direct damages, but does not in any manner, affect the exclusion of the indirect damages referenced in the Water Damage Exclusion Endorsement. The Court further found there is no coverage under the Policy for damages for tear out and replacement for any part of Plaintiffs’ home to repair the failed plumbing system by virtue of the Water Damage Exclusion Endorsement (CSH FL WDE 03 10 16). Thus, the Policy capped all of the Plaintiffs’ direct and indirect damages (including but not limited to tear out and replacement and loss of use) for their alleged claim to $10,000. The Court found that the Plaintiffs were only entitled to recover $10,000 for direct physical damages as a result of the alleged loss pursuant to the Limited Water Damage Coverage Endorsement. Read more
Miami Senior Associate Cristina Sevilla successfully secured a final summary judgment in a first-party property matter styled Maria Calvo and Rem Manuel Calvo v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiffs made a claim with Citizens, their homeowner’s insurance carrier, for damage to their property as a result of a failed cast iron plumbing system. Prior to Citizens inspection of the residence, the failed plumbing system was replaced and the damaged property was removed and discarded. Citizens requested a recorded statement and supporting documents in order to evaluate the claim, but its requests were ignored. As a result, Citizens was prejudiced in its ability to investigate the claim and arrive at a coverage decision. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed suit alleging Citizens breached the insurance policy by not providing coverage for the loss. Ms. Sevilla moved for final summary judgment with regard to Plaintiffs non-compliance with the policy’s post-loss obligations. Ultimately, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Citizens on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the pre-suit requirements of the policy that they, among other things, show the damaged property, provide requested documentation, and submit to a recorded statement. Ms. Sevilla is now pursuing a claim for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to a proposal for settlement. Read more
On March 20, 2020, Miami Senior Partner, Jorge Padilla, secured Final Summary Judgment in a First-Party Property case styled Ramon Rodriguez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiff made a claim against his homeowner’s insurance carrier for a loss that reportedly occurred as a result of Hurricane Irma. Plaintiff’s claim for interior water damage was denied due to the absence of any evidence of wind damage to the home. After engaging in preliminary discovery, Mr. Padilla moved for final summary judgment. In response, Plaintiff’s counsel relied on the deposition testimony of his client, who merely testified that his roof was not leaking prior to the hurricane and commenced leaking approximately three days after it made landfall in Miami-Dade County. Relying on well-settled law that causation cannot be established by post hoc reasoning, Mr. Padilla prevailed on the motion for final summary judgment and is now pursuing a claim for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to a proposal for settlement. Read more
On November 27, 2019, Miami Senior Partner, Jorge Padilla, secured Final Summary Judgment in a First-Party Property case styled Raul Ruiz, et al. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiffs made a claim against their homeowner’s insurance carrier for a loss that reportedly occurred as a result of a ruptured pipe under the slab of their property. Plaintiffs claimed that the tile flooring within their home became un-bonded as a result of water that penetrated the slab of the home. Seeking substantial damages, including attorney’s fees costs, Plaintiffs alleged that the denial of their claim constituted a breach of their homeowner’s insurance policy. By employing an aggressive discovery approach, Mr. Padilla was able to get Plaintiffs’ expert stricken for repeated violations of discovery orders. After securing that ruling, Mr. Padilla filed a motion for final summary judgment. Read more
Tallahassee Associate Tabitha Jackson, Esq., obtained a Voluntary Dismissal in a matter styled Smart Storm Solutions, LLC a/a/o Brinkley v. Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company. Plaintiff, as a purported assignee of the insured, filed a breach of contract suit in June 2019, without any facts, evidence, or information permitting payment of benefits under the insured’s homeowners insurance policy. Five months later, an inflated estimate was provided to Tower Hill with a demand for $80,000, inclusive of fees. Discovery was propounded on Smart Storm, though they failed to respond, failed to produce any evidence of work performed (or to be performed), and failed to respond to multiple inquiries for depositions. Read more
Tampa Associate Lauren Wages, Esq., obtained good result when the court granted Defendant Citizens’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment on February 6, 2020 in matter styled Leonor Ferrerio v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiff filed suit due to an alleged leak that originated in the garage from a water heater causing water to flow to the interior of Plaintiff’s home causing damage. In support of its Motion for Final Summary Judgment, Citizen submitted an affidavit of its expert who concluded that the garage where the water heater was located sat at a lower elevation than the living space slab and that the elevation of the garage sloped away from the living space. The expert further opined that there was no visible evidence of water damage related to a recent water heater leak. Citizens submitted a second affidavit confirming similar findings by its field adjuster at the time of his inspection. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit in opposition executed by the Plaintiff which the court found failed to controvert Defendant’s summary judgment evidence. The court specially found that “no cogent explanation has been brought forth by Plaintiff countering Citizens’ expert opinions that water flows down hill.” Read more
Partners Jonah Kaplan, Esq., and Jeremy Fischler, Esq., received a good result in a First-Party Property matter when just prior to the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff filed a Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice. The lawsuit in matter styled State 2 State Restoration a/a/o Gabriel Rodriguez v. Centauri stemmed from a homeowner’s claim for water damage from a plumbing loss.The Plaintiff a third party vendor performed water mitigation as a result of a plumbing leak at the insured’s Property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. The policy contained a Water Damage Exclusion Endorsement that excluded coverage for damages caused by plumbing leaks. Read more
On August 16, 2019, Stuart Office Managing Partner Lauren Smith, Esq. obtained a Defense Verdict in the five day trial of Bocinsky v. Federated National Insurance Company. The case involved a Hurricane Matthew price and scope dispute with several claims handling issues that were unfortunately allowed into evidence at trial, including the timing of Federated National’s post-suit cure payment for $60,000 after the claim had originally been found to be below the deductible. Plaintiff sought an additional $160,000 at trial, including $100,000 for a completely destroyed dock and seawall, which the Defense maintained were excluded by the water damage/storm surge exclusion. Read more
Stuart Managing Partner Lauren Smith, Esq. obtained a motion for summary judgment in a first-party insurance matter. In the case styled Water Extraction Team a/a/o Sonderman v. FedNat, Plaintiff received a partial assignment of insurance benefits from FedNat’s insured. Three days later, FedNat and the insured entered into a settlement agreement that encompassed the entire claim. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing that the release did not apply to its portion of the claim because the assignment preceded FedNat’s settlement. Read more
Stuart Managing Partner Lauren Smith, Esq. obtained a favorable result in matter styled Pelecki v. FedNat. when trial court granted - $125,431.56 Fee & Cost Judgment against Plaintiff. This first-party case was brought by a husband and wife for Hurricane Matthew damage. On behalf of FedNat, we served separate proposals for settlement on the Plaintiffs, each with a setoff condition that applied if only one proposal was accepted. The proceeds received by the settling spouse would be set off against any verdict obtained by the remaining spouse. Mr. Pelecki accepted his $30,000 proposal while Mrs. Pelecki opted to go to trial. The jury awarded Mrs. Pelecki just $15,000 of the $130,000 she sought in damages. Post-verdict, the trial court setoff the $30,000 settlement from the $15,000 verdict, resulting in a net zero judgment in FedNat’s favor. Read more
On October 17, 2019, Miami Partner Kelly Kesner, Esq. and Appellate Partner Edgardo Ferreyra, Esq. obtained final summary judgement in the matter of JL Shoes v. Downtown Investments Corp. It was alleged by Plaintiff that Hurricane Irma caused damage to the building in which plaintiff leased retail space. The Plaintiff alleged that the building owner negligently maintained the roof, and that as a result, the retail store had been severely damaged causing the loss of the store’s entire inventory of shoes. Plaintiff sought damages for the lost inventory, consequential damages, as well as moving and build out costs. It was successfully argued on behalf of the building owner that Plaintiff had failed to establish with any reasonable degree of certainty the damages that it had suffered. Read more
On July 19, 2018, Managing Partner Dan Santaniello, Esq. and Miami Associate Cristina Sevilla, Esq. received a complete defense verdict in a first-party property matter styled German Chavez and Maria Del R Morales v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiffs made a homeowner’s insurance claim alleging their property was damaged as a result of a hot water supply line leak beneath the floor slab. At trial, Plaintiffs offered the expert opinions of Grant Renne, P.E. who testified the water discharge caused tile debondment and foundational damage. Plaintiffs’ loss consultant, Ricardo Tello, estimated the cost of repairs to be in excess of $90,000. While the parties stipulated that an accidental discharge of water beneath the floor slab did occur, Defendant maintained there was no direct physical loss to covered property as a result of the water discharge. Read More