Jury Finds for Insurer in Property Dispute
Table of Contents
Case Background
Alexander Kaller brought this lawsuit against Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (UPCIC) on June 2, 2021, in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The case centered on a dispute over UPCIC’s refusal to cover damage at Mr. Kaller’s condominium property, Unit #1126 at 373 Poinciana Island Drive in Sunny Isles Beach. Mr. Kaller claimed that on or about October 18, 2020, his property sustained damage from an accidental discharge of water originating from a plumbing system or household appliance. UPCIC had issued a homeowners' insurance policy covering the property from November 10, 2019, through November 10, 2020. The insurer denied the claim, compelling Mr. Kaller to seek a Court order a declaratory judgment that the policy covered his loss, which then led to the trial on the claim for damages.
Cause
The underlying cause of action was UPCIC’s Breach of Contract. Mr. Kaller maintained that the damage specifically, the accidental water discharge was a covered event under the terms of the insurance policy. He asserted that the insurer's refusal to pay the full, covered cost of repairs and its continued denial of the claim represented a failure to uphold their contractual obligations, thereby breaching the agreement and forcing him into litigation.
Injury
The primary injury Mr. Kaller sustained was the physical damage to his condominium unit, including damage to walls, ceilings, and floors on multiple levels, caused by the water discharge. This damage required costly remediation and repair. The secondary injury was the financial detriment he suffered when UPCIC refused to pay the covered amount of the loss. This refusal meant Mr. Kaller faced the out-of-pocket costs of repair and the expense of hiring a public adjuster and legal counsel to fight the insurer’s denial.
Damages Sought
Mr. Kaller filed the lawsuit seeking to establish that UPCIC was contractually obligated to pay for the loss. He specifically sought a Declaratory Judgment that a covered loss had occurred. Beyond that, the homeowner pursued an award of monetary damages to fully cover the cost of repairing the property. He also sought interest on the unpaid claim amount, running from the date of the loss, and payment for his attorney's fees and costs, as permitted under Florida law when a policyholder successfully compels an insurer to pay a claim.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The trial unfolded as a battle over policy compliance and the precise cause of the water damage. UPCIC argued aggressively that Mr. Kaller failed to meet the conditions of the policy, and that the damage, regardless of its source, fell under specific policy exclusions.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Alexander Kaller
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): John S. Bernstein | Robyn E Lustgarten | Irina Tarnovsky
· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Daniel Moss | David Del Vecchio
Defendant(s): Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Brandon L. Fernandez | Lewis E Robinson | Hipolita Mata | Jennifer T Harley | Amelia A. Berson
· Experts for Defendant(s): Ahsan Sabbir
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The arguments focused on the policyholder's post-loss duties and the insurance company’s claim exclusions.
Claims
Mr. Kaller's counsel argued that the accidental discharge of water from the plumbing system or appliance constituted a direct physical loss that the policy explicitly covered. They asserted that the policyholder had met all necessary conditions precedent to coverage, including notifying the insurer of the loss and allowing for inspection. Crucially, they argued that UPCIC’s reliance on exclusions or procedural failures was simply a pretext to avoid paying a legitimate claim.
Defense
UPCIC’s legal team presented several Affirmative Defenses to deny the claim, concentrating on four main arguments.
Failure to Provide Prompt Notice: UPCIC claimed that Mr. Kaller failed to provide prompt notice of the loss, arguing that this delay prejudiced the insurer's ability to investigate the claim immediately and mitigate the damage. This non-compliance, they asserted, voided coverage.
Failure to Protect Property: The insurer also argued that Mr. Kaller had failed to protect the property from further damage after the loss occurred, potentially exacerbating the repair costs.
Excluded Causes: The defense argued that the loss was excluded because it was caused by wear, tear, and deterioration or by faulty, inadequate, or defective maintenance or workmanship, rather than a sudden, accidental discharge.
No Sudden or Accidental Loss: UPCIC’s final defense centered on proving that the damage was not sudden and accidental, but rather a gradual process that the policy did not intend to cover.
Jury Verdict
On November 7, 2024, the jury returned the verdict in favor of the Defendant, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, and against the Plaintiff, Alexander Kaller. This finding meant that Mr. Kaller failed to meet the foundational requirement of proving a covered loss under the policy, releasing UPCIC from its contractual obligation to pay for the damages.
Court Documents