Citizens Ordered to Pay $69K in Hurricane Eta Home Damage Case
Table of Contents
Facts in the Backdrop of the Incident
Jorge Trejos and Omar Quintana lived in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Their home at 11511 SW 145th Avenue was insured by Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The policy covered structural damage, personal property, and loss of use. The insurer operated in Florida and was authorized to issue homeowner’s coverage.
Events Leading to the Legal Dispute
Tropical Storm Eta hit South Florida on November 9, 2020. High winds and rain impacted the Plaintiffs’ home. Water entered the structure, damaging furniture and belongings. Trejos and Quintana promptly reported the loss to Citizens. The company opened a claim. Despite the Plaintiffs’ compliance with policy terms, Citizens either denied parts of the claim or delayed payment. This led to allegations of breach of contract.
Plaintiffs’ Injuries and Their Impact
The home’s structure sustained roof and interior damage. Water affected furniture and personal items. The Plaintiffs lost access to parts of the home. The disruption forced them to navigate daily life without key belongings and functional space.
Claimed Damages
The Plaintiffs sought compensation for structural and personal property damage, plus loss of use. They hired attorneys to recover what they claimed was rightfully owed. They requested attorney’s fees and statutory interest under Florida law. Their claim aimed to cover full repair and replacement costs.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: Jorge Trejos | Omar Quintana
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Sarah D. Reyer | Stuart B. Yanofsky | Erika M. Mora, Esq.
Expert Witness for Plaintiffs: Freddy M. Andrade | Rafael Leyva
Defendant: Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Counsel for Defendant: Lian Anthony
Claims
Breach of Contract
Trejos and Quintana alleged Citizens refused to honor their valid insurance claim.
Failure to Acknowledge Valid Claim
They claimed Citizens denied coverage without justification, despite full compliance with policy conditions.
Legal Costs and Jury Trial
They sought legal costs under Florida Statute § 627.428. They demanded a jury decide factual disputes over damages and policy interpretation.
Defense Position and Affirmative Defenses
Citizens denied the damage was covered under the policy. The insurer argued rain entered without a wind-created opening, excluding the loss. It maintained that no policy conditions were waived. Citizens questioned the date and notice of loss. The company insisted the claim did not meet coverage standards and demanded strict proof.
Jury Verdict
On February 27, 2025, the jury ruled in favor of Trejos and Quintana. Jurors found wind during Tropical Storm Eta caused direct physical loss. The verdict confirmed roof and interior damage stemmed from a covered event.