Jury Sides With Universal in Tropical Storm Eta Damage Case
Case Background
Henry and Rosa Pena owned a home in Miami Gardens, Florida. Their property was insured by Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (UPCIC). The policy covered wind and water damage. It remained active and fully paid during all relevant times.
Events Leading to the Legal Dispute
On February 9, 2020, Tropical Storm Eta struck the area. Strong winds and rain battered the Penas’ home. They reported the damage to UPCIC and cooperated with the investigation. The insurer acknowledged some damage but denied full roof coverage. It offered only a partial payment for interior repairs. This denial led to a legal dispute.
Plaintiffs’ Injuries and Their Impact
The storm severely damaged the roof. Rain entered the home and ruined parts of the interior. The property’s structural integrity suffered. The Penas experienced stress and disruption to daily living.
Claimed Damages
The Plaintiffs sought compensation for roof repairs, interior restoration, and associated costs. They claimed the insurer failed to pay for covered losses. They requested attorney’s fees, court costs, and legal interest. The Plaintiffs also cited breach of policy obligations.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Henry Pena
Counsel for Plaintiff: Erika L. Pardo | Christopher Herrera
Expert Witness for Plaintiff: Alfredo Brizuela | Santos Leal | Grant W. Renne
Defendant: Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company
Counsel for Defendant: Christina M. Valencia
Claims
Breach of Contract
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company issued a homeowners’ insurance policy covering storm-related damage. The company had a contractual duty to pay for covered losses. It failed to pay the full amount owed after the Plaintiffs submitted a valid claim. The insurer acknowledged coverage for interior damage but denied payment for roof damage, which was also covered. This refusal breached the terms of the policy.
Underpayment of Covered Losses
The Plaintiffs suffered a direct physical loss from Tropical Storm Eta. Despite a timely claim and full cooperation, the insurer undervalued the damage. It issued a payment based on its own estimate, which fell short of the cost to repair. This underpayment left the Plaintiffs with significant uncovered expenses.
Failure to Honor Policy Obligations
The Plaintiffs fulfilled all policy requirements. They paid all premiums and complied with post-loss duties. The insurer failed to meet its obligation to fully indemnify them, violating its duty under Florida law.
Legal Costs
The Plaintiffs were forced to retain legal counsel to recover owed benefits. They seek attorney’s fees, interest, and court costs due to the insurer’s failure to resolve the claim properly and in good faith.
Defense
UPCIC argued the Plaintiffs reported the loss 459 days late. It claimed this delay prejudiced the investigation. The company also cited policy exclusions, including wear and tear, faulty maintenance, and constant seepage. It denied any direct physical loss during the policy period. UPCIC stated required documents were missing and referenced a prior claim.
Jury Verdict and Outcome of the Case
On February 27, 2025, the jury ruled for Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company. Jurors found the Plaintiffs did not prove the storm caused direct physical loss within the policy period. As a result, the Plaintiffs received no compensation. The case ended in favor of the insurer.