Carl Bober and Paulette Fouts (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained a Defense Verdict on behalf of their client, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, in a first party property breach of contract action related to a Tropical Storm Eta claim.
Plaintiff brought a breach of contract action regarding a residential property insurance claim to her home related to a reported windstorm loss associated with Tropical Storm Eta. Plaintiff sought the replacement of her roof and payment for damages to the interior of her home. After an inspection by an independent adjuster, Citizens denied her claim due to exclusions in the policy of insurance for wear, tear and deterioration to the roof, as well as the lack of a peril created opening at the property. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit and provided Citizens with the report of an engineer who testified at trial that the damages he observed to the Plaintiff’s roof were clearly caused by tropical force winds experienced during Tropical Storm Eta. He found that the Plaintiff’s roof had uplifted, torn and creased shingles and further relied upon aerial photography which showed what he claimed was new damage to the property following the storm. The engineer had recommended the replacement of both the shingle roof and flat roof at the Plaintiff’s property.
For the defense, our expert engineer, testified on behalf of Citizens that there was no wind damage to the Plaintiff’s property caused by Tropical Storm Eta, and that the leaks which the homeowner experienced were due to pre-existing damages (which he identified from photographs of the property found with the MLS listing on a real estate listings website 7 months before TS Eta), significant ponding which caused long-term deterioration of the flat roof portion of the roofing system, as well as wear and tear to the shingle roof. He also used the Plaintiff’s pre-purchase inspection report preceding the reported date of loss to show the jury pre-existing damages and repairs (which was completely contrary to the 4 Point inspection report submitted to our client which had indicated the roof was leak-free and in satisfactory condition).
The jury found in favor of Citizens finding that the Plaintiff’s damages pre-existed the reported date of loss. Defendant’s motion seeking the recovery of Citizens’ attorney’s fees and costs is pending.
Plaintiff’s initial demand was $170K+ inclusive of attorney’s fees and costs.