Florida Jury Awards $87K in Home Insurance Dispute
Table of Contents
Case Background
Denise Siceron and Joreste Joseph owned a single-family home at 1490 NE 136th Street in North Miami, Florida. They insured the property under a homeowners policy issued by Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Inc., effective from June 16, 2019, to June 16, 2020.
The policy offered “all risk” coverage for the dwelling and other structures, which meant it covered direct physical loss from any cause not specifically excluded. It also covered certain personal property and loss-of-use expenses if a covered event made the home uninhabitable.
On February 10, 2020, the couple claimed they suffered a sudden plumbing leak inside their home. They reported that the leak caused significant interior damage, affecting floors, walls, and other finishes. They believed the loss fell squarely under the covered perils listed in their policy.
The insurer investigated and assigned claim number 901909. However, after reviewing the claim, Homeowners Choice denied coverage. The denial letter stated that the damage was excluded under the policy. The company argued that the cause of loss fell under categories such as faulty workmanship, wear and tear, corrosion, or inherent defects, none of which were covered.
The homeowners disputed the denial and filed a lawsuit seeking a court declaration that the loss was covered under their policy.
Cause
The Plaintiffs alleged that a sudden plumbing leak had occurred on February 10, 2020, while their policy was active. They claimed the leak caused immediate physical damage to the interior of their home.
They argued that this type of accidental water damage was not excluded by their policy and that the insurer wrongfully refused to pay for repairs.
The insurer responded that no covered “direct physical loss” occurred. It argued that any damage resulted from excluded causes, including wear and tear, corrosion, poor maintenance, or defective workmanship. The defense also claimed that the homeowners failed to meet certain policy duties, such as taking reasonable emergency measures to protect the property and providing complete documentation of the loss.
Injury
The Plaintiffs stated that water from the leak spread across multiple areas of the home, damaging flooring, baseboards, drywall, and paint. They claimed that the water intrusion disrupted the livability of the home and required professional remediation and restoration to prevent further deterioration.
Damages
The Plaintiffs sought enough funds to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. They argued that the policy obligated the insurer to pay for all necessary repairs caused by the covered event.
The jury later determined that the fair and accurate measure of damages owed by the insurer was $81,000.
KEY ARGUMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS:
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
• Plaintiff(s): Denise Siceron | Joreste Joseph
• Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Borshchukov Vyacheslav
• Expert for Plaintiff(s): Al Brizuela
• Defendant(s): Homeowners Choice Property and Casualty Insurance Company Inc
• Counsel for Defendant(s): Emily K Smith | Nicole Lauren Wulwick
• Expert for Defendant(s): David Ross | Christopher DiFrancesco
Defense Arguments
Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company argued that the loss reported by Denise Siceron and Joreste Joseph was not the result of a sudden, covered event under the terms of the policy. According to the insurer, its inspection did not confirm a qualifying plumbing leak on the date claimed. Instead, the company said the observed damage matched conditions typically caused by long-term issues such as deterioration, corrosion, or defects in construction or materials. The defense also highlighted that the policy specifically excluded these types of causes, and therefore, no payment was owed.
Claims
The insurer further claimed that the Plaintiffs failed to meet several policy requirements after the loss. It alleged they did not take reasonable emergency measures to prevent further damage, failed to maintain accurate records of repair costs, and did not provide all documentation requested during the claim investigation. The company maintained that these failures prejudiced its ability to assess the loss and supported its decision to deny coverage entirely.
Jury Verdict
After hearing the evidence, the jury sided with the homeowners. They found that the property did suffer a direct physical loss during the policy period and that the insurer failed to prove any of the claimed exclusions applied. The jury determined that the damage was not caused by faulty workmanship, poor maintenance, wear and tear, corrosion, or inherent defects. With no exclusions barring coverage, the jury awarded the Plaintiffs $87,749.10 in damages, holding the insurer responsible for the loss.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com