Jury Sides with Tower Hill in Property Damage Lawsuit
Table of Contents
Case Overview
Ileana Fernandez Adel and Khaled Adel owned a home at 16533 NW 77th Path in Hialeah, Florida. They insured the property through Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company. The policy was classified as “all-risk,” meant to cover any loss not clearly excluded. It specifically listed blasting vibrations as a covered cause of damage.
Damage and Dispute
Blasting activity occurred near the Plaintiffs’ property during the policy period. They reported damage to their home shortly afterward. Tower Hill inspected the property and noted visible damage. Despite this, the insurer denied coverage. It cited long-term wear, poor construction, and lack of maintenance as the real cause. Tower Hill stated these factors were excluded under the policy.
Impact on the Plaintiffs
The home showed signs of structural distress, including visible cracks. The damage affected the safety and livability of the residence. The Plaintiffs were left to manage mounting repair costs without insurance support.
Financial and Legal Demands
The Plaintiffs demanded full compensation for repair expenses. They claimed the insurer wrongfully denied coverage for a risk explicitly included in the policy. They asked for damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and other legal costs.
Legal Action Taken
The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for breach of contract. They alleged the denial violated the insurance agreement. They requested a jury trial and reserved the right to amend their complaint.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: Ileana Fernandez Adel | Khaled Adel
Counsel for Plaintiffs: R. Edson Briggs | Frederick Pye | Jeffrey D. Decarlo | Mark Andrew Nation
Expert Witness for Plaintiff: Sunil Gulati | David Del Vecchio
Defendant: Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company
Counsel for Defendant: Kevin Shohat | Brian W. Kelley
Expert Witness for Defendant: T. Careen Cramer | Greg McLellan
Claims
Breach of Contract
The Plaintiffs existed in a valid insurance agreement with Tower Hill. Tower Hill refused to pay for blasting-vibration damage. This refusal breached the policy. Consequently, the Plaintiffs suffered financial loss and legal harm.
Denial of Coverage and Refusal to Pay
Next, the insurer inspected the home and observed damage matching the Plaintiffs’ report. Yet Tower Hill denied coverage. It blamed deferred maintenance, age, construction defects, and poor installation. The Plaintiffs argued these reasons misapplied policy terms. Therefore, the denial lacked merit.
Wrongful Refusal and Material Breach
Additionally, the Plaintiffs labeled the refusal wrongful and material. Tower Hill ignored the clause covering blasting vibrations. Such disregard breached its contractual duty. As a result, the Plaintiffs sought repayment, interest, fees, and costs.
Damages and Entitlement to Relief
Consequently, the Plaintiffs incurred ongoing repair expenses and related losses. They requested judgment for every covered loss. They also claimed statutory interest, attorneys’ fees, and litigation costs under Florida law. They demanded a jury trial.
Reservation of Rights and Future Claims
Finally, the Plaintiffs reserved the right to amend the complaint. New evidence might expand claims or damages. They intended to pursue complete relief under the policy and state statutes. Thus, their legal rights remained preserved as proceedings advanced.
Defense
Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company denied liability by asserting full compliance with the insurance contract. It claimed it properly investigated the reported damage, conducted an inspection, and lawfully denied the claim based on policy exclusions. The insurer argued the alleged damage resulted from wear and tear, latent defects, faulty workmanship, earth movement, or blasting vibrations, perils explicitly excluded under the policy.
Additionally, Tower Hill raised affirmative defenses, including the Plaintiffs’ failure to meet conditions precedent, such as prompt notice and property preservation. It maintained that no covered peril caused the loss and that its denial was justified under the contract terms.
Jury Verdict
On January 22, 2025, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant, Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company. The jury found that Tower Hill did not breach its contractual obligations under the insurance policy issued to Plaintiffs Ileana Fernandez Adel and Khaled Adel. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any damages.