Miami Jury Backs Citizens in Hurricane Ian Claim
Table of Contents
Case Background
This case took place in Miami-Dade Circuit Court and centered on a homeowner’s insurance dispute. Jean Julio Boursiquot, the Plaintiff, owned a residential property that he said suffered significant roof and interior water damage during Hurricane Ian in September 2022.
Boursiquot filed a claim with his insurer, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Florida’s state-backed insurer of last resort. According to him, the storm’s high winds caused openings in the roof, which allowed rainwater to pour inside and damage his home.
When Citizens denied the claim, Boursiquot turned to the courts, filing a lawsuit in 2024 for breach of contract. He argued that his policy clearly covered hurricane-related damage and that Citizens wrongfully refused to pay the benefits he was entitled to receive.
Cause
Boursiquot asserted that Hurricane Ian caused a direct physical loss to his property within the policy period. He claimed that wind ripped shingles from the roof and created openings through which rain entered, damaging ceilings, walls, and personal property.
His complaint described a sudden and forceful event tied directly to the storm. He stressed that the loss fell squarely under the policy’s coverage for wind and hurricane damage.
Injury
Unlike personal injury cases, this dispute focused on property damage. Boursiquot said the storm left him with a badly compromised roof, recurring leaks, and widespread interior damage. The water intrusion affected his living areas, forcing him to spend money on temporary repairs and leaving him unable to fully use portions of his home.
He described emotional stress, frustration, and financial strain as he dealt with repeated denials from the insurer while his home remained in need of major repairs.
Damages
Boursiquot sought damages equal to the full cost of repairing or replacing the damaged portions of his home. That included:
The cost to replace or repair the roof,
The cost to remediate water-damaged interior areas,
Related expenses such as inspections, temporary repairs, and mitigation.
He also asked for attorney’s fees and litigation costs, as Florida law allows insured homeowners who prevail against insurers.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Plaintiff’s Arguments
Boursiquot’s legal team pressed the point that Hurricane Ian was a covered peril. They argued that Citizens should have paid for repairs under the windstorm provisions of the policy.
They maintained that Citizens conducted an incomplete or unfair investigation and leaned on exclusions to deny coverage. According to them, the evidence showed wind damage opened the roof, which in turn allowed rain inside. That sequence, they insisted, triggered full coverage under the policy.
The Plaintiff’s attorneys also pointed out that Citizens delayed processing the claim and ignored estimates showing the extent of storm-related damage. They said the company wrongfully labelled the issues as old or pre-existing, even though contractors and adjusters tied the damage to the hurricane.
Defense Arguments
Citizens denied the allegations and firmly stood by its denial letter. The company argued that the policy excluded coverage because the roof damage was not caused by Hurricane Ian, but by wear and tear, deterioration, and prior repairs.
The defense leaned on several exclusions:
Rainwater entering without a storm-created opening in the roof was not covered.
Wear and tear, marring, deterioration, or mechanical breakdown were excluded causes.
Pre-existing damage was not covered.
Citizens maintained that their adjusters inspected the property and determined the problems stemmed from long-term deterioration, not a sudden storm event. They emphasized that the policy only covered direct physical loss from a covered peril, not every problem discovered after a storm.
The defense also argued that Boursiquot gave late notice of the claim, waiting until August 2023 almost a year after Hurricane Ian struck. That delay, they said, prejudiced their ability to investigate promptly and fairly.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Jean Julio Boursiquot
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Ramon L. Lloret
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Esteban Rios Miralles | David Iannacone
Defendant(s): Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Counsel for Defendant(s): Michael A. Russell | Michael S. Hirschkowitz | Jayson A Serrano
Experts for Defendant(s): Nazario Ramirez
Claims
The lawsuit was framed as a breach of contract claim. Boursiquot asserted that:
His property sustained covered losses during the policy period.
Citizens wrongfully denied coverage.
He was entitled to damages equal to the cost of repairing both roof and interior damage.
Defense
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation firmly denied responsibility for paying the claim. The company argued that the roof and interior problems at Jean Julio Boursiquot’s home were not the result of Hurricane Ian but stemmed from ordinary wear and tear, deterioration, and prior patchwork. Their attorneys pointed out that the insurance policy did not cover such gradual issues, only sudden and direct losses caused by covered perils like wind. They also stressed that rain entering the home was not covered unless a storm created a visible opening in the roof, and their experts found no such storm-related breach. Citizens further emphasized that Boursiquot filed his claim nearly a year after the storm, which they said prejudiced their ability to conduct a fair investigation. The defense team maintained that the company followed the terms of the contract, conducted a proper inspection, and acted within its rights in denying the claim.
Jury Verdict
The case went to trial in July 2025. After deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.
The jury answered the first question whether the property suffered direct physical loss during the policy period in the negative. That finding alone ended the case. Even if damage existed, the jury accepted the defense’s position that it was caused solely by wear and tear, deterioration, or pre-existing issues.
Because of this conclusion, the jury awarded nothing to Boursiquot. The verdict underscored the high burden homeowners face when trying to prove that hurricane damage, rather than long-term deterioration, caused roof and interior problems.
Court Documents