Case Results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.