Yiliana Pena Wins $30K Insurance Dispute Verdict
Table of Contents
Case Background
This legal confrontation arose from a homeowner’s insurance dispute in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Plaintiff Yiliana Pena brought suit against her insurer, Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company, after the company failed to fully honor her claim for property damage. The case centered on a homeowner’s policy that Pena maintained, which she claimed provided coverage for direct physical damage that occurred at her Cutler Bay property during the policy period. When the insurance company did not pay the amount she believed she was owed, the conflict escalated from a standard claim to a full-blown lawsuit, forcing a jury to decide the value of the damage and whether the insurer had fulfilled its contractual duties.
Cause
Yiliana Pena’s complaint essentially accused the insurance company of Breach of Contract. She argued that she had diligently maintained a valid and fully paid-up homeowners’ policy with Universal Property and Casualty. This policy constituted a binding agreement where the insurer promised to pay for covered damages. After suffering damage to her insured property, Pena properly filed a claim, giving the insurer notice of the loss. However, despite this notice, the insurer failed to investigate, adjust, and pay the full claim amount in good faith, which Pena asserted amounted to a material breach of the insurance contract. By refusing to pay or by severely underpaying the damage, the company had abandoned its core contractual obligation to the homeowner.
Injury
As a direct result of the insurer’s alleged failure, Pena claimed she suffered significant financial injury. The damage to her property remained unrepaired or only partially repaired, leaving her personally responsible for the costs. The total injury included the full cost of repairs, materials, and labor required to restore her home to its pre-loss condition, all of which the insurance policy should have covered. Furthermore, she suffered the economic loss of interest on the unpaid benefits and incurred substantial costs for legal and expert fees necessary to prove the validity of her claim in Court.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiff demanded a monetary judgment for damages that exceeded the jurisdictional threshold of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00). Specifically, Pena sought compensation for the full value of the damages covered under the insurance policy, which she had been forced to pursue through litigation. The lawsuit sought to reclaim every dollar the insurance company should have paid for the physical damage to her property, along with any other benefits allowed by Florida law for an insurer’s failure to settle a claim.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The dispute required the jury to confront two major questions: first, whether the homeowner’s property actually sustained a covered loss, and second, whether the homeowner had followed all the required rules or "conditions" of the insurance contract after the loss happened.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Yiliana Pena
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Jasiel Tabares | Diana Maria Davila | Chastity G. Delgado | Raymond Ferrer
· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Christopher Thompson | Ernesto Guerrero
Defendant(s): Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Cesar Tavera | Kandia N. Batchelor | Patrick J. Walkington | Priscilla Armand | Christele Antoine | Amelia A. Berson
· Experts for Defendant(s): Pat Tardi
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Pena’s legal team focused on establishing the timeline and severity of the loss. They presented evidence, likely through expert witnesses like building consultants and public adjusters, proving that the home suffered clear, direct physical damage while the policy was active. The lawyers emphasized that Pena had done everything a reasonable homeowner would do she paid her premiums, reported the loss, and complied with the company’s investigation to the best of her ability. They asserted the insurer simply made a bad decision to deny or underpay a valid claim, thereby failing its duty to the customer.
Defense
The insurance company’s defense primarily challenged two elements: the existence of covered damage and, more strongly, the homeowner’s compliance. The insurer typically denied that the claimed damage was covered under the policy’s terms, perhaps suggesting that an exclusion, like wear and tear or poor maintenance, caused the damage, not a sudden, accidental event. The most common defense strategy, which the insurer explicitly relied upon, was the claim of Failure to Comply with Policy Conditions. This defense argued that Pena had failed to substantially meet critical requirements of the contract after the loss, specifically:
Providing Requested Documents: Pena allegedly failed to turn over all records and documents the insurance company requested to complete its claim investigation.
Sworn Proof of Loss: The insurer claimed Pena did not timely submit a formal, notarized statement detailing the loss, known as a Sworn Proof of Loss.
Showing the Property: The insurer also maintained that Pena did not cooperate by reasonably allowing them to inspect or show the damaged property and the cause of the loss.
By raising these defenses, the company sought to avoid paying the claim entirely, arguing that the homeowner’s own non-compliance relieved the insurer of its obligation to pay.
Jury Verdict
After considering the evidence and arguments, the jury returned a verdict on May 29, 2025, finding in favor of the Plaintiff, Yiliana Pena, and holding the insurance company responsible for the financial loss.
The jury addressed the insurer’s main defense, considering whether the company proved that Pena failed to substantially comply with the policy conditions. The jury specifically examined three points of non-compliance providing documents, submitting a Sworn Proof of Loss, and showing the property and for every single point, the jury decided that the insurer did not meet its burden of proof. This finding swept away the company’s defense, confirming that Pena had upheld her end of the contract.
Having established liability and dismissed the defense, the jury proceeded directly to calculating the damages. The jury determined that the amount of money necessary to fairly and adequately compensate Yiliana Pena for her damages totaled $30,077.87. This finding finalized the award, marking a victory for the homeowner against her insurance carrier.