Florida Jury Awards $75K in Home Insurance Dispute
Table of Contents
Case Background
Judy Dorcelus and Myrtha Ambroise-Dorcelus lived in North Miami, Florida. They held an active property insurance policy with the defendant, an insurance corporation authorized to issue property insurance in Florida. Their insured property was located at 120 NE 131st Street, North Miami. The defendant issued the policy in exchange for premiums paid by the plaintiffs.
Cause
On October 25, 2019, water suddenly discharged from a plumbing system in the insured home. The incident caused immediate physical damage. At the time, the insurance policy was in full effect. The plaintiffs reported the loss, and the insurer opened a claim. The insurer acknowledged the damage and accepted coverage. However, it unilaterally calculated the payout. The Plaintiffs disagreed with that amount and notified the insurer. Despite the dispute, the insurer failed or refused to pay the full value of the loss.
Injury
The property suffered water damage. While there was no bodily injury, the Plaintiffs claimed financial harm due to insufficient insurance reimbursement. They experienced the burden of repairing their damaged home without full compensation.
Damages
The Plaintiffs sought damages exceeding $30,000. They claimed the insurer breached the contract by underpaying the loss. They also requested statutory interest, court costs, and attorney’s fees under Florida law. Additionally, they claimed entitlement to attorneys’ fees under Florida Statutes §627.428 and/or §626.9373 due to the insurer’s failure to pay the full value of the claim.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Judy Dorcelus | Myrtha Ambroise-Dorcelus
Counsel for Plaintiff: Vyacheslav Borshchukov
Defendant: Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Counsel for Defendant: Shannon M. West | Daniel J. Poterek
Claims
Count I – Breach of Contract:
The plaintiffs alleged the insurer breached the insurance policy by failing to pay the full proceeds for a covered loss, despite acknowledging coverage. They demanded a jury trial on all issues triable by right.
Defense
Universal denied most of the Plaintiffs’ allegations and asserted that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the insurance policy’s conditions. Specifically, the Plaintiffs reported the alleged loss more than three weeks after it occurred, which, according to Universal, prevented a timely investigation and caused prejudice. Universal claimed the Plaintiffs delayed mitigation efforts, failed to provide requested documentation, and sought payment for damages that were excessive, unrelated, or excluded under the policy. Universal also stated that it had already paid any covered amounts and denied that any waiver or estoppel applied. Based on these defenses, Universal requested the court to enter judgment in its favor.
Jury Verdict
On June 12, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs, awarding them $75,000 in damages. The jury found that Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company was liable under the terms of the insurance policy and that the Plaintiffs were entitled to recover for their covered losses.