Citizens Insurance Wins Homeowner Storm Damage Dispute
Table of Contents
Facts in the Backdrop of the Incident
Juan Breijo and Amarylis Valle lived in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Their home was covered under a policy by Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The insurer operated in the same jurisdiction. The couple filed a lawsuit over a disputed claim for storm damage. They demanded more than $30,000 in compensation.
Events Leading to the Legal Dispute
On November 8, 2020, Tropical Storm Eta struck South Florida. It brought strong winds and heavy rainfall. The Plaintiffs reported roof leaks and water damage soon after. They filed a claim with Citizens. The company opened an investigation but disagreed with the Plaintiffs on the cause and extent of the damage. That disagreement led to a legal challenge.
Plaintiffs’ Injuries and Their Impact
The storm damaged the property’s interior and exterior. Water seeped through the roof. Walls, floors, and cabinets suffered damage. Electrical systems and appliances malfunctioned. The Plaintiffs struggled to cover repair costs. They faced continued financial strain while trying to restore their home.
Claimed Damages
Breijo and Valle requested full coverage for repairs and replacements. They claimed to have met all policy conditions. These included paying premiums, mitigating further damage, and submitting proper documentation. They sought attorney’s fees, pre-judgment interest, and court costs. They also asked the court to confirm their loss was covered under the policy.
Key Proceedings and Arguments
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: Juan Breijo | Amarylis Valle
Counsel for Plaintiffs: Jacqueline Rosado | Robert Jonathan Lee | Benjamin R. Alvarez
Defendant: Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Counsel for Defendant: Laura R. Weinfeld | Rosa M. Villa
Claims
Count I: Breach of Contract
The Plaintiffs argued Citizens failed to fully compensate them. They said the refusal broke the contract’s terms.
Count II: Declaratory Relief
They requested a judicial declaration confirming coverage. They wanted the court to affirm their eligibility for policy benefits.
Defense
Citizens denied wrongdoing. It argued the policy excluded the claimed damage. The insurer stated no covered peril created an opening for rain intrusion. Affirmative Defenses Included:
No initial opening caused by a covered peril.
Damage from wear, tear, or aging excluded.
Property sale limited potential recovery.
Pre-existing roof defects excluded.
Long-term deterioration, not storm damage, caused the issues.
Jury Verdict
On March 6, 2025, the jury sided with Citizens. It ruled the damage was not covered by the policy. Exclusions for wear, pre-existing damage, and lack of a covered peril applied. The Plaintiffs did not receive the benefits sought. The court dismissed the case in favor of the insurer.