Barbara Corsale LLC v. Universal Property & Casualty Verdict

Case Background

The legal battle began when Barbara Corsale discovered significant water damage at her property located at 2051 SE 3rd Street, Apt. PH2, in Deerfield Beach, Florida. The incident occurred around June 8, 2022, during a period when she held a valid homeowners insurance policy with Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company. Corsale claimed that a sudden and accidental overflow of water had severely damaged her home, prompting her to file a claim with her insurer. Although the insurance company initially inspected the property and acknowledged that a water loss had occurred, the two parties soon reached a stalemate over the final payout. Corsale argued that the company refused to fully indemnify her for the losses she sustained, eventually leading her to file a formal lawsuit for breach of contract in March 2024.

Cause

The core of the dispute centered on the "sudden and accidental" discharge or overflow of water within the residence. Corsale maintained that the event was an isolated, covered incident under her policy. However, the insurance company later contended that the damage might have resulted from issues that fell under policy exclusions, such as repeated seepage or maintenance failures.

Injury

The "injury" in this civil context referred to the physical destruction of the interior of the condominium unit. The water intrusion affected various parts of the property, requiring extensive repairs and restoration to return the home to its previous condition.

Damages Sought

In her initial complaint, Corsale sought damages exceeding $50,000, exclusive of interest and legal costs. She requested a judgment that would cover the full cost of the repairs, along with the reimbursement of her attorney's fees as permitted under Florida law.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The litigation progressed through the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County, where the parties exchanged several rounds of legal filings. The case eventually moved from a simple dispute over repair costs to a full trial where a jury had to decide if the insurance company owed Corsale more money or if an exclusion in the policy barred her claim entirely.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Barbara Corsale, LLC (formerly Barbara Corsale).

• Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Maury L. Udell, Esq. | Megan Elizabeth Pearl | Anthony Accetta

• Experts for Plaintiff: Giovanni Bango | Edgardo Isla | Frank Gonzalez

Defendant(s): Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company.

• Counsel for Defendant(s): Maisha Champagne, Esq., | Rebecca Rubin-Del Rio | Kaitlyn Marie Dugas | Caleb Ashe Liberman | Nicole Devinette

• Experts for Defendant: Brandon Mintz | Raul Paredes

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Claims

The Plaintiff’s legal team argued that Universal Property & Casualty had breached its contract. They presented evidence that the policy was active, the premiums were paid, and a legitimate water loss had occurred. Counsel emphasized that the insurer’s failure to pay the full value of the claim left the homeowner with unfinished repairs and out-of-pocket expenses.

Defense

Universal’s defense focused on specific policy exclusions and the homeowner’s conduct after the loss. The company argued that the loss might have been caused by "constant or repeated leakage or seepage" rather than a sudden burst, which would not be covered under the policy. Furthermore, they claimed that the Plaintiff had failed to comply with "Duties After Loss," such as providing requested records or allowing timely inspections, which they argued should void the coverage.

Jury Verdict

On December 5, 2025, after hearing all the evidence and arguments, the jury reached a unanimous decision in the Broward County Courtroom.

Coverage and Compliance

The jury first addressed whether the property had sustained a direct physical loss during the policy period between January 2022 and January 2023. They answered "YES" to this question, confirming that the loss was indeed a covered event. Next, the jury looked at the insurance company's claim that the Plaintiff had failed to cooperate with the investigation. On this point, the jury found that the Plaintiff had not failed her duties, effectively clearing her of any wrongdoing in the claims process.

Exclusions

The jury then moved to the specific defense arguments regarding policy exclusions. They were asked if the insurance company proved that the loss resulted from "inadequate, faulty, or defective maintenance" of the air conditioner. The jury answered "NO". Finally, they were asked if the insurer proved the damage came from "constant or repeated leakage or seepage". Again, the jury answered "NO," rejecting the insurance company's primary defenses.

Award

Having found the insurance company liable, the jury determined the "Actual Cash Value" (ACV) of the damages. While the final dollar amount was left for the foreperson to fill in the blank on the verdict form, the jury’s findings mandated that Universal Property & Casualty pay for the damage to the property, excluding only the specific system or appliance that had failed.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com