Case Results

In this case, at a pretrial conference right before trial, the trial judge decided to sua sponte reconsider his prior ruling denying the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment. The trial judge then denied the motion for rehearing that was filed. Because our client was not provided with due process, we appealed the ruling. The Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed with us and reversed the summary judgment.

This was another case where the attorney representing the carrier made blatant false representations to the trial court who, relying on those representations, dismissed our client’s case. We appealed the case to the Third District Court of Appeal who reversed the dismissal noting the lack of any reason to sanction the firm or its client. Most law firms who only get paid on a contingency basis (when the client gets paid) do not go the extra mile of challenging an erroneous ruling on appeal. Here, our commitment to our clients extends to pursuing an appeal for our clients when we believe the trial judge got it wrong, like here.

In this case, the trial judge entered summary judgment in favor of the insurance company. Summary judgment is supposed to be a way for a party to win a lawsuit in very limited circumstances, primarily when there are no disputed facts. In this case, there was a huge disputed fact: whether or not our client had complied with his post-loss obligations under the insurance policy? In addition to there being disputed facts, the insurance company failed to follow the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure regarding summary judgment evidence. Because we believed the trial court was wrong when it denied our client the right to a jury trial, we appealed the ruling. After we filed the Initial Brief, the insurance company conceded that the trial court was wrong when it granted summary judgment. The Second District Court of Appeal ordered the parties to appear in front of the trial court who ultimately recognized that he was wrong when he granted summary judgment. The trial court then entered an order vacating the summary judgment. Now, we can have a jury decide whether the insurance company was obligated to pay to repair the damage to our client’s home.

(Two lawsuits consolidated by the Court for judicial economy and efficiency)

Plaintiff reported a loss to his homeowner’s insurance carrier, Tower Hill Preferred Insurance Company, due to a sudden water leak in his kitchen. Tower Hill denied Mr. Gibb’s claim and argued that Mr. Gibbs failed to comply with his post-loss obligations under the policy despite immediate mitigation actions once the loss was discovered including repairing the damaged water line and hiring a professional water mitigation company to dry out his property. After several years of contiguous litigation and a three-day long jury trial in Broward County, Florida, a jury of Mr. Gibbs’ peers found in his favor and awarded him the full General Contractor’s estimate amount to finally make the necessary repairs to his home.

In this case, the trial judge entered summary judgment in favor of the insurance company. Summary judgment is supposed to be a way for a party to win a lawsuit in very limited circumstances, primarily when there are no disputed facts. In this case, there was a huge disputed fact: what caused the damage to our client’s property? In addition to there being disputed facts, the insurance company failed to follow the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure regarding summary judgment evidence. Because we believed the trial court was wrong when it denied our client the right to a jury trial, we appealed the ruling. After we filed the Initial Brief, the insurance company conceded that the trial court was wrong when it granted summary judgment. The Third District Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the summary judgment and sent the case back to the trial court so we could have a jury decide whether the insurance company was obligated to pay to repair the damage to our client’s home.

This case is also indicative of the lengths an insurer will go to preserve its right to use the post-loss conditions in an insurance policy to forfeit the rights of an insured. The trial court, after carefully considering the specific facts of this case, stayed the case for thirty (30) days for the insureds to sit for an examination under oath and provide a sworn proof of loss form. In response, Insurance Company filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (an “extraordinary writ”) and asked the Fourth District Court of Appeal to quash the order staying the case under its certiorari powers claiming that the order “rewrites the insurance policy and eviscerates and disposes of [Insurance Company’s] affirmative defenses.” Even after the appellate court ordered the insureds to “show cause” why the relief should not be granted, we filed a response to the petition explaining the improper nature of the insurer’s request. Based on the response we filed, the appellate court denied the petition and cited to Curran, which indicated a shift in this district towards requiring an insurer to prove it was prejudiced by the non-compliance of post-loss conditions prior to be able to forfeit all rights of an insured to benefits under the insurance policy.

As a result, the trial court’s order that abated the case for the insured to sit for an examination under oath and provide a proof of loss was upheld, and the insurer’s attempt to use those arguments to avoid paying benefits was significantly undercut.

This case is also indicative of the lengths an insurer will go to preserve its right to use the post-loss conditions in an insurance policy to forfeit the rights of an insured. The trial court, after carefully considering the specific facts of this case, stayed the case for thirty (30) days for the insureds to sit for an examination under oath and provide a sworn proof of loss form. In response, Insurance Company filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (an “extraordinary writ”) and asked the Fourth District Court of Appeal to quash the order staying the case under its certiorari powers claiming that the order “rewrites the insurance policy and eviscerates and disposes of [Insurance Company’s] affirmative defenses.” Even after the appellate court ordered the insureds to “show cause” why the relief should not be granted, we filed a response to the petition explaining the improper nature of the insurer’s request. Based on the response we filed, the appellate court denied the petition and cited to Curran, which indicated a shift in this district towards requiring an insurer to prove it was prejudiced by the non-compliance of post-loss conditions prior to be able to forfeit all rights of an insured to benefits under the insurance policy.

As a result, the trial court’s order that abated the case for the insured to sit for an examination under oath and provide a proof of loss was upheld, and the insurer’s attempt to use those arguments to avoid paying benefits was significantly undercut.

In this case, the trial judge entered summary judgment in favor of the insurance company. Summary judgment is supposed to be a way for a party to win a lawsuit in very limited circumstances, primarily when there are no disputed facts. In this case, there was a huge disputed fact: whether or not our client had complied with his post-loss obligations under the insurance policy? In addition to there being disputed facts, the insurance company failed to follow the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure regarding summary judgment evidence. Because we believed the trial court was wrong when it denied our client the right to a jury trial, we appealed the ruling. After we filed the Initial Brief, the insurance company conceded that the trial court was wrong when it granted summary judgment. The Second District Court of Appeal ordered the parties to appear in front of the trial court who ultimately recognized that he was wrong when he granted summary judgment. The trial court then entered an order vacating the summary judgment. Now, we can have a jury decide whether the insurance company was obligated to pay to repair the damage to our client’s home.

Plaintiff sued for extensive damage to his home due to a leak in the sewer system of his home. Anchor denied coverage for the Plaintiff’s claim. The insurer alleged that its refusal to pay any amount to the insured was because the damages to Mr. Garcia’s home were a result of extended constant or repeated leakage and/or seepage of water over a period of time and that it was the previous insurer’s responsibility to pay for Plaintiff’s damages. Throughout the litigation of the suit, Anchor insisted that the damages to the home were pre-existing and not covered by the policy of insurance they issued. The case went to trial after three and a half years of contentious litigation. After a three day trial including conflicting expert testimony by the parties’ experts, the jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded.

Ms. Campbell suffered damage to her kitchen cabinetry, baseboards and drywall due to an extensive water leak. The water leak was so extensive that it required the setvices of a professional water mitigation company emergency mitigation services. The insurance company issued payment to the water mitigation company for their services rendered but inexplicably refused to pay the homeowner for her property damage and, thus, denied her claim. At trial, the insurance company relied upon the expert opinion of an engineer hired by the Insurance company after trial had already commenced. This engineer had never performed a property inspection and relied upon photos that the engineer did know when they were taken. The insurance company attempted to explain their payment to the water mitigation was made in an effort to protect the insured from the charges/liability for those services. The jury easily saw through the weak arguments and awarded Ms. Campbell damages to replace her kitchen cabinets.

In this case, the trial judge entered summary judgment in favor of the insurance company. Summary judgment is supposed to be a way for a party to win a lawsuit in very limited circumstances, primarily when there are no disputed facts. In this case, there was a huge disputed fact: what caused the damage to our client’s property? In addition to there being disputed facts, the insurance company failed to follow the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure regarding summary judgment evidence. Because we believed the trial court was wrong when it denied our client the right to a jury trial, we appealed the ruling. After we filed the Initial Brief, the insurance company conceded that the trial court was wrong when it granted summary judgment. The Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the summary judgment and sent the case back to the trial court so we could have a jury decide whether the insurance company was obligated to pay to repair the damage to our client’s home.

In this case, a pipe on the insured’s property burst, causing significant water damage to his property. The pipe was outside, therefore, the insurer took the position that the damage was excluded under the “water damage” exclusion. The trial court entered summary in favor of the insurer on that interpretation of the policy. We appealed the ruling and argued that summary judgment is not warranted on the “water damage” exclusion because there is no disputed the water that caused the damage flowed through the plumbing – it did not leak directly from the pool and that the insurer advocated for an illogical interpretation of the Policy. Simply because the water, at one point, flowed through the pool that does not trigger an exclusion for water damage that “leaks” or “flows” through a … swimming pool.”

Plaintiff sued for extensive damage to his home due to a broken pipe in his kitchen. Citizens denied coverage for the Plaintiff’s claim alleging that damages to the home were a result of constant or repeated leakage or seepage of water over a period of time; faulty or inadequate repairs or maintenance or by wear and tear or deterioration. The case went to trial after over three and a half years of contentious litigation. Jury found in favor of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff sued for extensive damage to his home due to a broken pipe in his kitchen. Florida Peninsula denied coverage for the Plaintiff’s claim. The insurer alleged that its refusal to pay any amount to the insured because he materially failed to comply with his post loss obligations, which included not “promptly” reporting the loss because he waited a mere 19 days before reporting the loss to his insurer. It should be noted that the policy of insurance does not define what the insurer considers to be prompt. The case went to trial after five years of contentious litigation. Jury found in favor of Plaintiff.

The insurance companies we sue have a bag of tricks to intimidate us from sticking up for our clients. In this case, after the insured opted to dismiss her claim, the insurance company pursued and was awarded a judgment against our law firm of close to $100,000. We challenged that judgment on appeal, and it was reversed. The appellate court determined that there was no basis for awarding the monies to the carrier and that the insurance carrier’s attorney had failed to timely request the sanction.

(Two cases that were consolidated by the Court for purposes of judicial economy)

Plaintiff sued for extensive damage to his home due to a broken pipe in a bathroom and second broken pipe in the kitchen. Citizens denied coverage for both claims. The insurer alleged that its refusal to pay any amount to the insured was because the damages to his home were a result of constant or repeated leakage or seepage of water over “a period of time,” faulty or inadequate repairs or maintenance or by wear and tear or deterioration. The policy does not define “period of time” which can be interpreted to mean anything from 2 seconds to years. Additionally, although the insurer expected the policy holder to unreasonably be continuously updating the insured structure, even when this requirement is met, it will allege that the maintenance or “repairs” were the inadequate and, thus, the cause of the loss. The case went to trial after four years of contentious litigation. Jury found in favor of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff brought two suits against Universal for losses due to a kitchen leak and a bathroom leak that took place on different dates, but within the same policy period. Universal’s alleged was that the Plaintiff breached the contract by not submitting to an examination under oath. Although Ms. Nunez had not been able to attend the examination under oath, Universal was granted ample opportunity to investigate the claim and inspected the property multiple times. Universal had no other reason to deny the claim other than the inability to conduct the examination under oath. Had Universal conducted the examination via telephone, it would have been able to gather the same responses from Ms. Nunez as those she would have provided under oath. After prolonged litigation, the matter went to trial. The jury sided with the Plaintiff on both lawsuits and awarded her the monetary damages to allow for proper repairs to her home.

Mr. Pierre ‘s home sustained damages as a result of a bathroom leak. After inspecting the property and investigating the claim, Citizens’ position was that the damages were not covered under the policy and issued a complete denial of the claim. Citizens blamed the physical loss and damages caused on wear and tear, deterioration over time and constant and repeated seepage of the leak; in other words, the damages were caused by worn plumbing which had been leaking for an undefined extended period of time. Citizens maintained its position and aggressively litigated for three years. After a three-day trial, the jury found in favor of the Mr. Pierre and awarded him monetary damages to allow to repair his home.

The Pierres suffered a water leak causing extensive damage to their kitchen, including cabinetry, baseboards and drywall. Florida Peninsula denied the claim and accused the Pierres of committing insurance fraud because Florida Peninsula it alleged that the Pierres were claiming the same damages from a prior kitchen leak. After suit was filed, Florida Peninsula aggressively defended the case insisting focusing on its fraud defense. The matter went to trial twice. Mr. Pierre attended the first trial which was canceled on the second day after the Strems Law Firm successfully struck Florida Peninsula’s fraud defense. The judge allowed Florida Peninsula to amend its defenses to” properly allege fraud.” Mr. Pierre unfortunately passed away before the retrial. Mrs. Pierre, now a widow, testified at the second trial where Florida Peninsula continued its accusations of fraud. Mrs. Pierre was able to persevere and provide compelling testimony proving that the claim at issue unrelated to the prior claim, and that the Pierres had indeed suffered new damages as a result of the leak.The jury ultimately agreed with Mrs. Pierre, rejected Florida Peninsula’s fraud argument, and awarded the full amount she asked for to repair her kitchen damages.

Ms. Reese suffered water damage due to a kitchen leak. She hired a water mitigation company to perform dry out services. After reporting the claim to her insurance company, an Examination Under Oath was scheduled allowing an attorney for Universal to ask questions under oath of Ms. Reese regarding the loss. Ms. Reese inadvertently failed to attend the examination under oath due to a calendar mistake and Universal, instead of allowing her to reschedule, it automatically denied the claim. All efforts by Ms. Reese to reschedule the examination under oath were rejected. Shortly after, Universal issued payment to the water mitigation; however, stood by its denial of the claim. After Ms. Reese sued Universal, Universal argued they it was not liable for the loss due to the one missed examination under oath. At trial, the arguments centered around Universal’s alleged failure to cooperate in the investigation due to the missed examination under oath. Universal could not credibly explain why it paid the water mitigation company but not its own insured or why it refused to reschedule the examination under oath. Universal also could not identify who attended the missed examination under oath on behalf of the company. The jury easily saw through Universal’s lack of cooperation defense and awarded Ms. Reese monetary damages for her loss.

This case presented yet another instance where the insurer went to great lengths to avoid trying the insured’s case on the merits. It convinced the trial court to dismiss the insured’s case solely based on the failure of a non-party to appear for deposition because, as argued by the insurer, the insured “must” be hiding this witness. Adding insult to injury, the insurer had arguably never properly served the non-party with a subpoena. The Fourth District reversed, holding that it was inappropriate to sanction the insured for the failure of the non-party to appear. In reversing the case back for our client to receive the jury trial we demanded on his behalf, the appellate court noted that it had “scoured” the record and was unable to find any justification for what the trial court did.

Ms. Reyes opened a claim with United for After inspecting the property, damages to her kitchen caused by a plumbing leak. United took the position that the loss was not due to a sudden leak but rather as a result of constant and repeated seepage of water into the cabinets and surrounding area. United also claimed that the damages were pre-existing, which, while redundant, placed another obstacle in Ms. Reyes prosecution of her case against United. After 3 years of contentious litigation, the case went to trial. The jury deliberated and awarded Ms. Reyes the full amount of damages she claimed based on her expert’s findings.

Plaintiff reported a loss to her homeowner’s insurance carrier due to a sudden and unfortunate water leak in her bathroom. Citizens denied Ms. Rocha’s claim, and even went so far as to accuse her of fraud, rather than tender payment for the loss under the policy. Left helpless, Plaintiff had no other recourse but to file suit against Citizens. After three years of litigation and three day-long trial in Miami-Dade County, Florida, a jury of Ms. Rocha’s peers found in her favor and awarded her an amount to finally make the necessary repairs to her home.

On February 19, 2021, the Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled against Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company in reversing an order granting judgment in favor of the insurer. In Saavedra v. Universal Property & Insurance Company, Case No. 5D19-2176, Mr. Saavedra sued when Universal failed to honor its contractual obligation to pay for unpaid damages resulting from a water leak in Mr. Saavedra’s home. In response to Mr. Saavedra’s breach of contract action, Universal generally denied that Mr. Saavedra complied with conditions precedent and his obligations under the Policy before filing the lawsuit.

Later, Universal requested summary judgment on the basis that Mr. Saavedra did not comply with conditions precedent to the lawsuit because he did not timely report the loss, provide records to Universal, or show the damaged property. The Property Advocates argued that summary judgment could not be based on these defenses because Universal had not specifically included these issues in its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, which is required under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1120(c). The trial court rejected The Property Advocates arguments and granted summary judgment to Universal.

On appeal, the Fifth District confirmed that The Property Advocates properly interpreted the law in arguing that Universal had waived its defense of compliance with conditions precedent under Rule 1.120 because Universal did not in its Answer “identify the nature of the conditions precedent or the nature of noncompliance, such as the specific post-loss duties with which Saavedra failed to comply, or where exactly in the policy such conditions could be found.” The Fifth District concluded that “Universal failed to comply with the requirements of rule 1.120(c), thereby waiving its defense that Saavedra failed to comply with conditions precedent.” Because the trial court entered summary judgment on the sole basis that Mr. Saavedra failed to satisfy conditions precedent, the Fifth District reversed the judgment and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings.

In this case, the trial judge entered summary judgment in favor of the insurance company. Summary judgment is supposed to be a way for a party to win a lawsuit in very limited circumstances, primarily when there are no disputed facts. In this case, there was a huge disputed fact: what caused the damage to our client’s property? Because we believed the trial court was wrong when it denied our client the right to a jury trial, we appealed the ruling. The Third District Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment and sent the case back to the trial court so we could have a jury decide whether the insurance company was obligated to pay to repair the damage to our client’s home.

In this case, the insurance company wanted to depose an employee of our law firm. The trial judge refused to allow the deposition to happen because any information that our employee had would either be protected by the attorney-client privilege or the insurance company could get from a less intrusive source. The insurance company then filed what is called a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Second District Court of Appeal. The writ is referred to as “extraordinary” relief and is only granted in very limited circumstances. Still, this is yet another example of the lengths our opponents will go to in order to intimidate. After a response was filed on behalf of our client and oral argument, the Second District Court of Appeal denied the insurance company’s petition.

Plaintiff sued for extensive damage to her home due to an air conditioning unit leak. Safepoint denied coverage for the Plaintiff’s claim. The insurer alleged that its refusal to pay any amount to the insured was because the damages to her home were a result of constant or repeated leakage or seepage of water over “a period of time.” The case went to trial after four years of contentious litigation, including but not limited to multiple attempts by the insurer and its large number of attorneys dedicated to defeating Ms. Williams claim, to finalize the claim under a motion for summary judgment, which would have foreclosed her right to a jury trial by a group of her peers. Eventually, a jury found in favor of Ms. Williams.

In this case, the trial judge entered summary judgment in favor of the insurance company. Summary judgment is supposed to be a way for a party to win a lawsuit in very limited circumstances, primarily when there are no disputed facts. In this case, there was a huge disputed fact: what caused the damage to our client’s property? In addition to there being disputed facts, the insurance company failed to follow the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure regarding summary judgment evidence. Because we believed the trial court was wrong when it denied our client the right to a jury trial, we appealed the ruling. After we filed the Initial Brief, the insurance company conceded that the trial court was wrong when it granted summary judgment. The Third District Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the summary judgment and sent the case back to the trial court so we could have a jury decide whether the insurance company was obligated to pay to repair the damage to our client’s home.