Jury Rules Against Homeowners in Florida Water Damage Case

Case Background

In the summer of 2020, homeowners Liss and Adrian Olivares reported sudden water damage at their residence on SW 245th Street in Homestead, Florida. They claimed the damage resulted from a sudden plumbing failure. At the time of the incident, July 11, 2020, their homeowner’s policy with People’s Trust Insurance Company was active. The couple filed a claim, expecting the insurer to inspect the loss and issue payment.

However, on October 3, 2020, People’s Trust denied the claim. The insurer stated the loss either fell outside the scope of coverage or stemmed from pre-existing damage, not a covered peril. The denial led the Olivareses to file suit for breach of contract and sought a declaratory judgment to establish coverage. They alleged that the insurer had wrongfully denied their valid claim and failed to make payment as promised in their policy.

Over the next four years, the case moved through pleadings, depositions, and inspections until it went to trial in April 2025. On April 22, 2025, a Miami-Dade County jury returned its verdict.

The cause that led to the dispute

The heart of the dispute centred on whether wind had damaged the home’s roofing structure in a way that allowed water to enter during the policy period. The Olivareses claimed the water damage inside their home directly resulted from such an opening caused by wind, which triggered their coverage under the homeowner’s policy.

They argued that the loss was sudden and accidental, not the result of wear, tear, or neglect. Their legal team pointed to photographs, inspection reports, and repair estimates that suggested the damage had occurred suddenly and fell within the policy's bounds.

On the other hand, People’s Trust countered that no covered peril, such as windstorm or hail, had caused an opening in the roof. Their adjusters stated the home showed no signs of storm-related openings and instead reflected age-related deterioration typical of an 18-year-old roof.

Injury (Property Loss)

The Olivareses described substantial interior water damage to walls, ceilings, and flooring. They asserted that water entered the structure after a storm event compromised the roof’s integrity. Their claim included costs for roofing replacement, interior restoration, and temporary housing during repairs.

They also claimed emotional and financial stress caused by the denied coverage, delayed repairs, and the need to engage in prolonged litigation to recover what they believed was rightfully owed.

According to their filings, the damage went beyond cosmetic mould risk, structural dampness, and loss of use, rendering parts of the home temporarily unlivable.

Damages

The Plaintiffs sought compensation for the full cost of returning their home to its pre-loss condition. While the verdict form did not require the jury to assess exact monetary damages after a finding of no coverage, the implication was that the claim, had it been validated, would have included substantial repair costs. The homeowners also requested attorneys’ fees and statutory costs under Florida insurance law.

However, since the jury did not find in their favour, no damages were awarded. The entire claim was denied as the jury concluded the alleged storm had not caused the kind of physical damage that would trigger policy coverage.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The trial revolved around whether a covered peril had caused the damage. The Olivareses’ attorney argued that visual inspections supported their claim. They called witnesses to describe water intrusion patterns and provided contractor estimates that aligned with sudden roof failure.

People’s Trust, in response, emphasised the lack of external storm-related damage. Their field adjuster reported no visible windstorm or hail impact. They stated the damage was due to age and lack of maintenance. They further argued that the Plaintiffs failed to meet post-loss obligations such as providing timely access or submitting proper documentation.

Both sides battled over policy interpretation, expert assessments, and whether the Plaintiffs had met their burden of proof. In the end, the jurors sided with the defense.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Liss Olivares | Adrian Olivares

·       Counsel for Plaintiffs: Joanna M. Alemany| Marin, Eljaiek| Lopez & Martinez

Defendant(s): People’s Trust Insurance Company

·       Counsel for Defendant: Michelle Rodriguez

Key Arguments by Counsel

Plaintiffs’ counsel urged the jury to focus on the timeline. She argued that the roof had performed well until the storm and that the resulting water damage aligned with what would happen if the roof had been breached. She pointed to Florida’s often volatile summer weather as a source of the loss and urged jurors to recognise the seriousness of water intrusion.

Defense counsel relied heavily on the adjuster's findings. She highlighted that no opening caused by wind existed. She reminded the jury of the policy’s clear language, only specific perils were covered, and deterioration was excluded. She argued that the Plaintiffs failed to prove the water entered due to a covered cause.

Claims Asserted

Breach of Contract

The Olivareses claimed that People’s Trust breached its contractual duty by denying a valid claim. They argued that the policy required the insurer to pay for damage caused by covered perils, and wind damage was explicitly included.

They stated they met all post-loss obligations: paying premiums, submitting the claim, and allowing inspection. The insurer, in turn, denied the claim without a full investigation or fair basis.

Declaratory Judgment

They also requested a court ruling declaring that the damage fell within the policy’s coverage. They wanted confirmation that People’s Trust was legally obligated to pay for the damage and that its denial was unjustified.

Defense Arguments

People’s Trust denied liability. It argued that the policy excluded damage from age, wear, and long-term deterioration. They pointed to the age of the roof, 18 years and noted no signs of hail, wind uplift, or broken tiles. The insurer also referenced policy language that excluded water damage not caused by a storm-created opening.

The company also argued that some damage predated the policy period, and any claim arising from that could not be covered under the terms of the agreement.

Jury Verdict

On April 22, 2025, the jury ruled in favour of the Defendant, People’s Trust Insurance Company. Jurors found that Liss and Adrian Olivares failed to prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that their property had been damaged by the direct force of wind which created an opening in the building through which water entered during the policy period.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com