Homeowners Win Hurricane Ian Suit Against Citizens
Table of Contents
Case Background
In the wake of Hurricane Ian, a legal dispute unfolded in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida. The case centered on a residential property located at 480 Birchwood Way in Weston, Florida, owned by Marie Henriquez and Alfonso Martinez.
The homeowners maintained a Homeowners HO-3 Special Form Policy with Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, a governmental entity created to provide property insurance in Florida. The policy, identified as number 07779603, covered the period from July 25, 2022, to July 25, 2023. This insurance contract provided substantial coverage limits, including $398,000 for the dwelling and $99,500 for personal property, subject to specific deductibles for hurricane and non-hurricane losses.
Cause
On September 28, 2022, Hurricane Ian swept through the region. The Plaintiffs alleged that this severe weather event inflicted significant damage on their Weston property. Specifically, they contended that the force of the hurricane winds created an opening in the roof or walls of their home, which subsequently allowed rain to enter and damage the interior.
Injury
Following the storm, the homeowners submitted a claim to Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, assigned claim number 001-00-331539. However, on December 19, 2022, the insurance carrier denied coverage for the loss. Citizens took the position that the damages observed were not covered under the terms of the policy. Consequently, the homeowners received no insurance proceeds to repair their damaged property, leading them to allege that the insurer breached the policy contract.
Damages Sought
In their lawsuit, Marie Henriquez and Alfonso Martinez sought compensation to cover the repairs and losses sustained. They demanded damages exceeding $50,000, exclusive of interest, Court costs, and attorney's fees. Additionally, they requested a declaratory judgment from the Court to formally establish that the policy provided coverage for the loss, thereby resolving the doubt regarding their rights under the insurance contract.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The legal conflict began formally on January 2, 2024, when the Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint. The litigation process moved forward, and the Defendant filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on July 22, 2024.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Marie Henriquez | Alfonso Martinez.
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Kaneily A. Valdes | Peter Alexander Diamond
· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Luis Damian Garcia | Michael J.Cordo
Defendant(s): Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Joshua I. Meyer | Kyara L Herard
· Experts for Defendant(s): Sudip Subedi
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiffs' legal team argued that a valid contract existed between the homeowners and Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. They emphasized that the homeowners paid all necessary premiums and satisfied all post-loss obligations required by the policy.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs contended that the damage to the property resulted directly from a covered peril Hurricane Ian and that the insurance carrier’s refusal to acknowledge coverage constituted a material breach of the contract. They argued that the damage was obvious upon inspection and clearly fell within the policy's terms. Furthermore, they asserted a need for the Court to declare the rights of the parties, specifically that coverage existed for the loss.
Defense
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation admitted to issuing the policy but staunchly defended its decision to deny the claim. The defense counsel argued that the Plaintiffs failed to meet their post-loss obligations, specifically citing a failure to protect the property from further damage and failure to fully comply with policy terms before filing the lawsuit.
In their affirmative defenses, the defense team relied on specific policy exclusions. They argued that the policy did not cover rain damage to the interior of a building unless the direct force of wind first damaged the building, causing an opening through which the rain entered. They asserted that the investigation by their representatives showed no such wind-created opening existed.
Furthermore, the defense argued that the damages claimed by the Plaintiffs were actually the result of wear and tear, marring, or deterioration, which are explicitly excluded from coverage. They also raised the possibility that the damage stemmed from faulty, inadequate, or defective maintenance or workmanship, another set of conditions typically excluded under the policy.
Jury Verdict
The trial concluded on November 20, 2025, with the jury returning a verdict after deliberating on the evidence presented regarding the cause of the loss and the condition of the property. The jury addressed several critical questions on the Verdict Form to determine liability and coverage.
Direct Physical Loss Proven
The jury first considered whether the Plaintiffs proved they suffered a direct physical loss during the policy period. On this fundamental question, the jury found in favor of the homeowners, confirming that a direct physical loss did occur between July 25, 2022, and July 25, 2023. The jury checked "Yes" for this question.
Rejection of Wear and Tear Defense
A pivotal moment in the verdict came when the jury evaluated the defense's argument regarding the condition of the roof. The jury was asked if Citizens proved that the damage to the Plaintiffs' roof resulted from wear, tear, or deterioration. The jury rejected this defense, explicitly checking "No". This finding significantly undermined the insurance carrier's justification for denying the claim based on maintenance issues or the age of the roof.
Liability Determination
The structure of the verdict form indicated that a finding against the defense on the "wear and tear" and "faulty workmanship" questions would lead the jury to determine if wind caused the necessary opening in the roof. While the extracted text of the verdict form shows the jury found for the Plaintiffs on the first two liability questions (confirming loss and rejecting wear/tear), the specific checkmarks for the subsequent questions regarding faulty workmanship and the specific wind causation were not explicitly captured in the text provided. However, the rejection of the primary defense argument (wear and tear) marked a significant legal victory for Marie Henriquez and Alfonso Martinez, establishing that the condition of their roof was not simply a matter of age or deterioration as the insurer had claimed.
The Foreperson, Michael Stamm, signed the verdict form on November 20, 2025, formalizing the jury's decision. The verdict established liability elements in favor of the Plaintiffs, specifically dismantling the "wear and tear" exclusion the insurance company relied upon to deny the hurricane claim.