Miami Jury Awards $84K in Home Insurance Dispute
Table of Contents
Case Background
This case was filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida, and dealt with insurance contract law. The Plaintiffs, Arthur T. Somano and Enriqueta Somano, sued People's Trust Insurance Company, alleging breach of a homeowner's insurance contract and related obligations. The key legal issue was the Defendant's rejection and failure to appropriately cover losses resulting from a qualified property damage occurrence under an active insurance policy.
Events Leading to the Dispute
The Plaintiffs owned residential property located at 16083 SW 63rd Terrace in Miami, Florida, which had been insured under a homeowner’s policy issued by People's Trust Insurance Company. On or about November 8, 2020, the property had sustained significant damage due to a covered peril. The Somano Plaintiffs had reported the loss to the insurance company on September 22, 2021. Upon notification, the insurer had initiated an investigation of the claim and had acknowledged the existence of the active policy at the time of the incident.
Despite the Plaintiffs’ full compliance with all post-loss obligations, including reporting, documentation, and cooperation during the inspection process, the insurance company had failed to make full and prompt payment. The Defendant had invoked its right to repair provisions under the policy but had then unreasonably delayed and obstructed the repair process. This had led to further deterioration of the home, increased costs, and frustration of the Plaintiffs’ rights under the policy.
Injuries Suffered and Damages Faced
As a direct result of the Defendant’s failure to timely and appropriately repair or indemnify the insured property, the Plaintiffs had suffered substantial economic losses. These included the continuing deterioration of the insured premises, the inability to use or reside in portions of the home, emotional distress related to the uncertainty and inconvenience, and the cost of securing temporary accommodations and/or alternative repairs. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs had incurred out-of-pocket expenses, including legal fees, due to the insurer’s breach of contract and bad-faith handling of the claim.
KEY ARGUMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS:
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
Plaintiff(s): Arthur Somano, Enriqueta Somano
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Sandy Mercedes Angel | Jasiel Tabares | Chastity G. Delgado
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Ernesto Guerrero | Devon Hunt
Defendant(S): Peoples Trust Insurance Company
Counsel for Defendant(s): Frank Samitier | Sarah E. Licona | Dania Battle | Daniel Stettin
Experts for Defendant(s): Joe Hernandez
Claims Asserted
The Plaintiffs had asserted a detailed claim for breach of contract, stating that the Defendant had failed to fulfil its obligations under the insurance agreement by denying, underpaying, or failing to properly process a valid claim. They had also claimed that the Defendant’s invocation of its right to repair had been executed in bad faith, without initiating or completing timely repairs. Additionally, the Plaintiffs had sought damages exceeding $30,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney's fees, which had been justified under Florida Statutes 627.70131 and 627.428. These statutes authorize recovery of attorney’s fees and costs where an insurer has wrongfully denied or delayed benefits owed under a policy. The Plaintiffs had demanded judgment for all compensatory damages, together with pre- and post-judgment interest and any additional relief the court had deemed appropriate.
Defense Arguments
General Denial
The insurer admitted the policy existed but denied the Plaintiffs followed all policy terms. It questioned the timeliness of the report and the extent of cooperation.
Exclusion of Non-Covered Perils
The company said the damage came from normal wear, tear, and thermal expansion—not a windstorm. They pointed to their inspection on September 30, 2021, as proof.
Late Reporting
The insurer argued that the Plaintiffs waited more than ten months to report the loss, which hurt its ability to investigate.
Neglect of Property
It claimed the homeowners failed to protect the property from further harm.
Long-Term Water Damage
The company said the damage resulted from water leakage over 14 days or more, which the policy excluded.
Indispensable Party
The insurer argued that Raul Somano, who might have had an interest in the property, should have been included in the case.
Pre-Existing Damage
They claimed the damage occurred before the policy began.
Misrepresentation
The defense accused the Plaintiffs of giving false information about the date and cause of the damage.
Jury Verdict
The jury had found in favor of the Plaintiff, Arthur Somano. The jury awarded $84,526.72 to Arthur Somano as compensation for his property damage claim It had determined that the Plaintiff had proven by the greater weight of the evidence that his property had sustained damages during the policy period and that the damages had been caused by a windstorm one of the covered perils under the insurance policy.
Court Documents