Jury Rejects Citizens Insurance Defense in $79K Storm Claim
Table of Contents
Case Background
The legal dispute began when Brayan Yarini Villasante and Eddy M. Villasante Perez filed a lawsuit against their insurer, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, following a dispute over property damage. The homeowners owned a residence located at 680 NW 20th Street in Pompano Beach, Florida. They had maintained a homeowner's insurance policy with Citizens that was in full effect during the summer of 2023.
Cause
The homeowners alleged that a windstorm struck their property on or about June 30, 2023. According to the complaint, this weather event caused direct physical damage to the structure. While the Plaintiffs maintained that the policy covered such "all risk" losses, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation initially denied the claim. The insurer argued that the damage resulted from excluded causes rather than a covered windstorm event.
Injury
The primary injury involved significant physical damage to the dwelling and its interior. The homeowners reported that the windstorm compromised the integrity of the building, leading to secondary damages. In their notice of intent to litigate, they pointed to specific interior issues and the need for emergency repairs, such as tarping the roof to prevent further deterioration.
Damages Sought
In their initial legal filings, the Plaintiffs sought damages exceeding $50,000. Specifically, an estimate provided during the pre-litigation phase valued the necessary repairs and losses at $79,343. Beyond the cost of physical repairs, the homeowners requested compensation for interest, Court costs, and the reimbursement of their attorney’s fees.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The litigation moved through the Broward County Circuit Court as both sides debated the actual source of the property damage. The Plaintiffs asserted that they had fulfilled all their obligations under the insurance contract, including providing prompt notice of the loss and allowing the insurer to inspect the home. They argued that Citizens had breached the contract by failing to pay the benefits owed under the policy.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Brayan Yarini Villasante | Eddy M. Villasante Perez | Yamile Romero.
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Jasiel Tabares | Sandy Angel
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Ernesto Guerrero | Esteban Rios
Defendant(s): Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Holly K. Miller | Robert F Tacher
Experts for Defendant(s): Toby Maxwell
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Attorneys for the homeowners emphasized that the insurance policy operated on an "all risk" basis, meaning the insurer had to prove an exclusion applied to avoid payment. They claimed the windstorm served as the sole "proximate cause" of the interior damage. Conversely, the defense team for Citizens argued that the homeowners had failed to maintain the property properly, suggesting the damages existed long before the alleged storm.
Claims
The Plaintiffs centered their entire case on a Breach of Contract claim. They argued that the insurance policy functioned as a binding agreement where the insurer promised to indemnify them for sudden physical losses. Because Citizens refused to pay for the windstorm damage, the Plaintiffs claimed the company had violated the fundamental terms of the insurance agreement.
Defense
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation presented several affirmative defenses to justify its denial of the claim. First, they asserted that the property did not have a "peril created opening" a hole in the roof or walls caused by the wind which is often a requirement for interior water damage coverage. Second, they argued that the damage resulted from general wear and tear, age-related deterioration, and existing cracks in the exterior walls and foundation. Finally, the insurer claimed that surface water or flooding, rather than wind-driven rain, had seeped into the home's baseboards, which the policy specifically excluded.
Jury Verdict
After hearing the evidence presented by both the homeowners and the insurance company, the jury reached a decision on December 19, 2025. The jury foreperson, Angele Cambronne, delivered the final verdict to the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court.
Finding of Windstorm Loss
The jury first addressed the most critical question: whether the Plaintiffs had proven that their home sustained a direct physical loss caused by a windstorm during the policy period. The jury answered "Yes" to this question, effectively rejecting the insurance company's primary argument that no covered peril had occurred.
Rejection of the Flood Defense
The jury then evaluated the insurance company’s affirmative defense regarding the cause of the interior damage. Citizens had tried to prove that the interior issues were caused by flood or surface water seeping into the foundation. However, the jury answered "No" to this question, finding that the insurer had not proven that flood water was responsible for the interior damages.
Final Determination
By finding that a windstorm had caused the damage and that flooding was not the cause, the jury cleared the way for the Plaintiffs to recover under their policy. The verdict form required the jury to determine a specific dollar amount to fairly compensate the homeowners for their interior damages. Following these findings, the Court entered the verdict into the official record on December 23, 2025.