State Farm Wins Water Damage Case: Policy Exclusion Applies
Table of Contents
Case Background
This civil lawsuit arose from a homeowner’s insurance claim denial that resulted in a contract dispute in the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiffs, Mildred Ventura and Edgardo Ventura, initiated the action against their insurer, State Farm Florida Insurance Company. The dispute centered on a homeowner’s insurance policy that State Farm had issued to the Venturas, covering their residential property located in Broward County.
The homeowners reported a loss to State Farm in late November 2021, claiming that damage, including water intrusion and mold, occurred at their property during the policy’s effective dates (June 20, 2021, to June 20, 2022). They submitted a claim for water mitigation, mold remediation, and repair costs. State Farm, however, investigated the claim and ultimately sent the Venturas in April 2022, standing by its decision to refuse coverage. The Venturas then filed suit, asserting that the insurance company had breached the contract by failing to pay for the covered damage.
Cause
The primary cause of the lawsuit was State Farm’s refusal to pay the claim. The Venturas contended that their property suffered a direct physical loss from a covered peril under the policy. They asserted that State Farm breached the insurance contract by refusing to pay the necessary amounts for repairs and restoration after the covered loss event. The homeowners argued that State Farm wrongfully applied policy exclusions when it denied the claim.
Injury
The injuries claimed by the Venturas were financial. They suffered out-of-pocket losses when they had to pay for water mitigation and mold remediation services themselves, or when the contractors who performed that work sought payment from them. Because State Farm refused to pay, the homeowners incurred substantial costs to investigate, repair, and eventually litigate their right to coverage, resulting in financial injury.
Damages Sought
The Venturas sought a money judgment from the Court. They aimed to recover the full amount of damages the property sustained that the policy covered. This included the costs for the initial water mitigation, the mold remediation, and the structural and cosmetic repairs needed to restore the home to its pre-loss condition. The Complaint specified that the amount in controversy exceeded $30,000.00, exclusive of attorney’s fees and costs.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Mildred Ventura | Edgardo Ventura
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Jeremy Theodore Schilling | Francisco Ivan Abad | Dainel Hernandez | Aaron D. Silver
Experts for Plaintiff(s): Richard H. McMonagle
Defendant(s): State Farm Florida Insurance Company
Counsel for Defendant(s): Brian Charlton Hunter | Massel J. Abisror
Experts for Defendant(s): Nicole DiPerna
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The trial centered entirely on interpreting the policy’s language, specifically whether an exclusion applied to the damage. Plaintiffs’ counsel maintained that the loss stemmed from a sudden, covered event. Defense counsel for State Farm, however, presented evidence to the jury arguing that the damage was due to continuous wear-and-tear or long-term leakage, which fell squarely under a policy exclusion. They vigorously asserted that State Farm properly denied the claim from the start, following the policy’s rules.
Claims
The Venturas pursued a single, clear claim against the insurer.
Breach of Contract The homeowners claimed that State Farm had a contractual duty under the homeowner's policy to pay for the covered loss. They asserted that by refusing to pay the full costs to repair the property damage, State Farm violated its promises to the insureds, constituting a material breach of the insurance contract.
Defense Arguments
State Farm mounted a robust defense, utilizing several Affirmative Defenses to counter the Venturas' breach of contract claim.
Policy Exclusions State Farm’s primary defense focused on the policy itself. They argued that the damages were excluded from coverage because they resulted from a long-term problem, such as continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water from a plumbing system over an extended period. The policy language specifically excluded losses caused by such continuous events. Furthermore, they contended that any damage from fungus or mold was not covered because it did not result from a separate, covered cause of loss, pointing to a policy endorsement (HO-2570).
The insurer raised the technical defense that the Venturas lacked standing to sue for certain amounts. State Farm argued that the homeowners had assigned their right to recover costs for water mitigation and mold remediation to third-party contractors, who were not parties to the lawsuit. They claimed that because one of those contractors (1st Onsite Restoration) had settled its claim separately, the Venturas could no longer pursue that portion of the damages.
Jury Verdict
The jury in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, returned its verdict on August 28, 2025, finding in favor of the Defendant, State Farm Florida Insurance Company.
The jury’s findings focused on two critical questions that determined the outcome of the lawsuit.
Finding of Covered Damage First, the jury confirmed that the Venturas did prove by the greater weight of the evidence that their property was damaged during the effective dates of the policy (June 20, 2021, to June 20, 2022). This was the initial factual hurdle the homeowners successfully cleared.
The Jury addressed the central issue of the trial: State Farm’s defense based on policy exclusions. The jury found that the greater weight of the evidence did show that the damage was excluded from coverage by the policy. This finding definitively supported State Farm’s primary defense, meaning that although damage occurred during the policy period, the specific cause of that damage was not a risk the insurer promised to cover.
The Court found that State Farm properly denied the claim, and the Venturas received no damages.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com