Preview
Filing# 168438633 E-Filed 03/09/2023 10:13:07 PM
IN THE CIRCUITCOURT OF THE 17TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
IRMA QURESHI, et. al., CASE NO- CACE 2021-007238
Plaintiffs,
VS.
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
i
DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT OF EVIDENTIARY FACTS ADDUCED AT TRIAL
Defendant, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
by and through the undersigned counsel, files this Statement of EvidentiaryFacts
("Universal"),
Adduced at Trial. Herein, Universal notes only those facts that were presentedto the Jury through
evidence and/or testimony.Universal files this Statement in support of its post-trial
motions filed
contemporaneously herewith.
STATEMENT OF FACTS ADDUCED AT TRIAL
1. Universalissuedpolicynumber 1501-1503-2106 (the"Policy")to Plaintiffs forthe
property located at 661 Alabama Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312 (the "Property") for the
subjectPolicyperiod of June 5,2020 through June 5, 2021. (P's Exhibit 1 at p. 1 of UPCIC HO
DEC 15 02 20; IQ Test. at 9:3-9).
2. Plaintiffs had a priorclaim with Universal in 2016 involvinga leak in the master
bedroom and bathroom. The claim did not affect the kitchen. Plaintiffs were unaware of any issues
with the plumbing in the guest bathroom that was affected in 2020 and the kitchen until October
14, 2020. (IQ Test. at 116:11-117:6; 130:5-131:23).
Plaintiffs hired a company named Four Star
Services to handle the 2016 leak. Ud. 117:7-10).
Page 1 of 11
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 03/09/2023 10:13:07 PM.****
3 On Irma Qureshi ("Qureshi"),
October 14, 2020, Plaintiff, noticed tile popping off
ofthe wall in her guest bathroom and called her handyman, Braulio,to investigate
it and repairthe
damage. (IQ Test. at 9:25-10:13; 14:21-15:6; BE Test. at 6:15-23).Qureshi didnotknow that any
leak or damage existed priorto October 14, 2020. (IQ Test. at 73:18-74:2).
4. Braulio arrived at the Property between 1pm and 2pm on October 14, 2020 and
departed between 7pm and 8pm that same day. (BE Test. at 30:17-22).When Braulio arrived,he
saw tiles on the wall that were popping up and cracks in the grout, and there were three tiles that
were hollow. Braulio did not see any leaks outside of the wall. There were no displacedtiles on
the floor. (BE Test. at 6:15-8:5; 24:15-25:3).
5. The handyman opened up the wall and found mold and water damage and a water
leak. (IQ Test. at 9:25-10:13).Braulio found the leakingpipe in the wall between the vanity and
the tub. (BE Test. at 13:20-14:19; P's Exhibit 3 at 12).However, Braulio also found the leaking
pipe between the toilet and the vanity.(BE Test. at 32:8-17).Braulio did not remove the tile
between the toilet and the vanity.(P's Exhibit 2 at photograph 3).Braulio removed the toilet,
the
vanity,a section of the wall where the toilet and vanitywas, the shower, the shower handle, and a
section of the tile near the shower the first day he was at the Property.(BE Test at 15:9-21; BE
Test at 27: 18-25).Braulio showed everythingto Irma Qureshi and advised her to call a plumber to
deal with the leak. (Id.at 15:9-14; 29:19-30:14).He also turned offthe water at the Property due
to the active water leak. (IQ Test. at 85:12-23; BE Test. at 31.10-16).He came back "a few days
later" to conduct the remainder of the demolition in the bathroom. (BE Test. at 16:17-19; 27:4-
17).When he returned to the Property,the pipe repairhad been completed.(BE Test at 16:20-
18:7).Whenever Braulio removed the bathtub from the guest bathroom, he damaged the bathroom
Page 2 of 11
floor. (BE Test at 16:2-11)1.
6. On October 15, 2020, Qureshi reporteda claim to Universal regardingthe mold
damage, water damage, and water leak. (IQ Test. at 11:1-15; 75:17-77:5). Qureshi notified
Universal that Plaintiff was "doing repairwork because o f the tile popping out. That [Plaintiff's]
handyman believes he found mold and a water leak and water damage." lid.j.
7. Qureshi never saw an active leak. Qureshi never saw any water on the floor. (77:6-
78:3).
8 Qureshi saw discoloration indicative ofwater damage in the bathroom wall and to
the kitchen cabinets. She described what she saw as being discolored and looking damp, but could
not describe the allegeddamp look as anything other than being discolored. (IQ Test. at 78:4-
79:17).Qureshitold Universal in her depositionand at trial that her kitchen cabinets were damaged
by the water event(79:9-80:1).
9- Plaintiffs never had a water mitigationor dry-outcompany conduct any work at the
Property. (IQ Test. at 87:9-88:2).
10. Qureshi was not having remodeling done in the bathroom at the time that the mold
damage was discovered. (QureshiTest at 80:25-81:20).
11. On after contactingUniversal, Qureshi contacted
October 15th, SERVPRO to
provide an estimate for mold remediation and do sketches of the guest bathroom and adjoining
areas. (IQ Test. at 13:23-14: 10). Qureshi had not contacted SERVEPRO prior to contacting
Universal. (Id.at 81:21-82:15).
12. Still on October 15111,
Qureshi invited a public adjusterto the Property to discuss
testified that he removed the bathtub in the guest bathroom on October
1
Braulio never specifically
14,2020.
Page 3 of 11
the claim. (IQ Test. at 14:11-14; 95:8-96:2).
13. On October 16, 2020, Qureshi hired Mold Pros to conduct a mold test at the
Property. (IQ Test. at 15:7-18).MoldPros arrived at the Property on October 16, 2020, at which
time they set up mold detection devices and took photographs inside the guest bathroom. (P's
Exhibit 2).There was no bathtub in the guest bathroom when MoldPros arrived. Ud. at 12).Mold
Pros discovered mold at the Property. (IQ Test. at 15:19-20; P's Exhibit 2 at 1).Despite the
presence of mold, MoldPros determined that the Property was habitable. (P'sExhibit 2 at 3).
14. On October 17,2020, Qureshi had a pipe in the guest bathroom wall replaced by a
plumber hired by her husband. (IQ Test. at 17:5-22:9; 85:24-86:10; P's Exhibit 2 at 4; P's Exhibit
3).Because Universal instructed Plaintiffs not to discard any damaged property, Plaintiffs retained
the damaged pipe in the backyard from October 17, 2020 until October 26,2020, when it was
discarded by Plaintiffs because it was wet and muddy. Ud. at 88:3- 92:22).Plaintiffs discarded the
damaged property because "once the backyard flooded, it didn't make any sense to keep them."
Ud. at 140:15-141:10).
15. Around October 19, 2020, Plaintiffs moved out of the Property because the mold
test "did confirm that there was mold in the house and it was all throughout the air." Plaintiffs
moved into Quereshi's in-law's converted garage. (IQ Test. at 29:24-30:21).
16. Between October 15, 2020 and October 25, 2020, preparationfor the mold
remediation took place at the Property.(IQ Test. at 27:14-28:4).
17. On October 25, 2020, the Property experienced a flood due to heavy rainfall. (IQ
Test. at 23:19-25).The flood did not affect the guest bathroom. Ud. at 24:10-12).
18. On October 26, 2020, Universal sent Plaintiffs a request for documents which
included a request for all prior claim information and proof of repairs.Qureshi did not send
Page 4 of 11
Universal the prior claim information and proof of repairsbecause "you guys already had
everything."Qureshi knew that Universal had the documents because Universal "forwarded our
emails from 2017 to us justlike a few days ago and that had the attachments from it." (IQ Test. at
99:17-103:18).
19. On November 4, 2020, Universal inspectedthe Property. (IQ Test. at 13:8-10;
20:23-25).
20. On November 7,2020, the Property experienceda second flood due to Hurricane
Irma. (IQ Test. at 28:5-15).The second flood affected the entire Property, including the guest
bathroom and kitchen. (Id.at 110:15-111:12).
21. Plaintiffs filed a claim with their flood insurance provider,Bankers Insurance
Company to recover the damages caused by the two floods. As part of that claim, Plaintiffs had a
water mitigationcompany come out to dry out the master bedroom and bathroom after the first
flood and dry outthe entire Property after the second flood. (IQTest. at 111:13-112:17).Plaintiffs
received $40,000.00 in damages from their flood insurer on the flood claim for the two floods. (Id.
at 114:18-115:5).
22. Sometime in mid to late December 2020, Plaintiffs terminated their relationship
with the publicadjuster.
(IQ Test. at 31:6-13).
23. Sometime in January, Plaintiffs retained SERVEPRO to begin the mold
remediation. (IQ Test. at 32:14-23).
24. On January 7,2020, Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to Universal.
ofrepresentation
(QureshiTestimony at 34:5-18; P's Exhibit 4).
25. On January 15, 2021, Claim PreparationExperts, who Plaintiffs had retained as loss
consultants to provide an estimate of the cost to repairthe damage to the Property, inspectedthe
Page 5 of 11
the kitchen and bathroom had
Property. (MR Test. at 4:7-14; 7:3-12; 17:7-10).Upon inspection,
been guttedand there was 2-foot flood cut "throughoutbasically
the entire property."(Id.at 7:13-
21). The flooringwas still in place in the bathroom. There was damage to the flooringin front of
where the bathtub would have been. (Id.at 7:22-8:6).The flooringis continuous throughout the
entire Property.(Id.at 8:7-14).
26. The damage estimate prepared included damage to the kitchen, the bathroom, and
..
"then the floor,which was damaged in the bathroom that was continuous throughoutthe home.
(Id.at 12: 1 -7).Each room included on the estimate is separated and the first three items in each
room pertainto the removal and replacement of the flooring.
(P's Exhibit 26; MR Test. at 14:25-
15:13).While the estimate does include replacementof the upper cabinets in the kitchen,it does
not include replacement of the lower cabinets as "it was [Mr. Rios's] knowledge that the lower
cabinets would have been included in the flood estimate." (MR Test. at 15:14-18).The total
amount ofthe estimate was $41,823.01. (MR Test. at 16:9-14; P's Exhibit 26 at 11).Ofthat total,
$27,963.96 was for replacement of flooringthroughout the Property, with only $2,714.73 of that
going to replacethe flooringin the guest bathroom. (P's Exhibit 26; MR Test. at 14:25-15:13).
Mr. Rios did not see water damage when he was at the home. (MR Test. at 14:16-24).Theestimator
did not see the property or any photographs of the Property priorto draftingthe estimate. CId.at
21:20-22:15; 25:21-26:13).The estimator had no way of determiningwhat the damages were
caused by, whether by the floods or otherwise. Ud. at 21:4-9; 24:19-25).
27. At the end of January 2021, Plaintiffs found an apartment in West Palm Beach in
which to relocate. (IQ Test. at 47:15-48:10).Due to COVID, other rentals in Fort Lauderdale and
Miami were too expensive.(IQ Test. at 48:11-19).
28. On February 18, 2021, Plaintiffs provided Universal with a sworn proo f of loss
Page 6 of 11
("SPOL") in the amount of $64,304.48, an estimate prepared by Plaintiffs' loss consultant,and
certain proofs of payments, includingPlaintiffs' additional livingexpenses, and estimates. (IQ
Test. at 51:6-22; 105:12-106:18; 109:3-21).The SPOL and estimate were to replacethe kitchen
and the tile throughout the home and to recuperate the additional livingexpenses. Ud. at 109:3-
21). The estimate provided in support of the SPOL was the estimate prepared by Mario Rios of
Claim PreparationExperts. (Id.at 106.10-18; Compare P's Exhibit 11 at 55-65 to P's Exhibit 26).
29. On or about March 2,2021, Universal sent correspondenceto Plaintiffs,
which they
received some days later,confirming that Universal was covering the mold damage at the Property.
(IQ Test. at 60:18-61:10).
30. Shortly after March 24, 2021, Qureshi received a payment in the amount of
$10,000.00 from Universal, which is the limit for mold under the Policy.(IQ Test. at 10:10-13;
65:16-66:7; P's Exhibit 10).The $10,000.00 mold limit did not cover the costs for mold testing
and remediation and Plaintiffs were requiredto pay out of pocket for those expenses. (IQ Test. at
66:2-16).
31. Plaintiffs made the decision to permanently relocate in May of 2021 and were able
to sell their home on June 11, 2021. (IQ Test. at 138:21-139:8).
32. Plaintiffs paid $1,180.00 for necessary electrical work in the area of the Property
affected by the mold. (IQ Test. at 66:17-68:6; 70:3-72:20).
33. Plaintiffs paid their handyman, Braulio Echevarria, $3,950.00 for removing the
damaged fixtures,reframing the wood due to water damage, and doing the buildback after the
mold remediation was completed.(IQ Test. at 66:7-69:14; P's Exhibit 23).
34. Universal's causation expert, Diana Arana, obtained her master's degree in
environmental engineeringafter having worked in the construction industryfor years. She is a
Page 7 of 11
To formulate her opinionswith respect to
engineer.(DA Test. at 7:9-9:14).
licensed professional
the Plaintiffs' claim, Ms. Arana reviewed the publicadjuster's
and the field adjuster's
photographs
(P's Exhibit 2),and other documents related to the Claim. (DA Test. at 6:9-19; 39:4-12).
35. Ms. Arana rendered each of the following opinions to a reasonable degree of
(DA Test.
engineeringprobability at 38:5-10):
a. There was water damage to the building components near the plumbing in the
guest bathroom. (Id.at 6:20-23; 11:13-25);
b. There was no evidence of an active leak in October of 2020. (Id.at 29:3-6).
c. The water damage between the bathroom wall and the kitchen wall was caused
Evidence of
years priorto October of 2020. (Id.at 12:18-13:24; 16:22-17:5).
this includes:
i. The patinaon the pipes.(Id.at 13:12-22; 15:15-21).
ii. The discoloration of the wood. (Id.at 13:10-12).
iii. The deterioration of the wood. Ud. 15:22-16:16).
iv. The fact that there was different types of pipe in the walls, which is
indicative of a priorrepair.
(Id.at 14:24-15:14).
v. The kitchen wall, visible from within the created opening in the guest
bathroom, showed no evidence of any staining,
mold, or deterioration.
Ud. at 20:18-21:24).
d. The bathroom was being remodeled. Ud. at 13:23-14:23; Trial Transcriptat
39:21-40:22).Evidenceofthis includes:
i. The toilet,
which is several feet from the allegedleak,was removed and
a hole was dug beneath where it previouslysat. (Id.at 14:7-15; 34:17-
Page 8 of 11
35:8; P's Exhibit 2 at photo 3).
ii. The tub was removed despiteit not being in the place where the tiles
were coming off the walls and there was a hole dug beneath that. (DA
Test. at 14:7-18).
e. The plumbing in the bathroom had been replacedpriorto October of 2020. (Id
at 14:24-15:14; 29:7-21; 31:2-33:21; P's Exhibit 2 at photo 4).
f. At some pointpriorto October of 2020, either the bathroom was remodeled or
they had a leak;as these are the only two reasons that the plumbing would have
been replaced.(DA Test. at 19:19-20:17).
g. There was water damage at the exterior wall that could not be dated with any
precision.However, that damage was likelycaused by water from the shower
enteringgaps in the tile grout. This is not connected to the priorplumbing leak,
as the mold growth was above the copper water line and gravitywould have
pulled any moisture down, not up. (Id.at 16:22-18:7; 35:14-36:6; P's Exhibit 2
at photo 3).
h. The kitchen wall in the affected area had been previouslyreplaced,as it did not
show any evidence of moisture, mold, or other damage. (DA Test. at 20:18-
21:18; 33:22-34:5).
i. There was no reason to remove the kitchen base cabinets. (Id.at 25:8-12; P's
Exhibit 2 at photos 26-28 & 30; Trial Transcriptat 39:21-40:22).
i. There was no bathroom-leak-related damage to the kitchen cabinets.
(DA Test. at 22:1-7; 23:12-25:12; 36:8-37:24; P's Exhibit 2 at photos
26-28 & 30).
Page 9 of 11
ii. The only damage to the kitchen base cabinets was consistent with a pipe
leak under the kitchen sink, of which there was direct evidence. (DA
Test. at 23:12-25:12; P's Exhibit 2 at photos 26-28 & 30).
j. There was no reason to replacethe kitchen upper cabinets. (DA Test. at 23:12-
24:1; 38:2-4).The tile in the correspondingpositionin the bathroom remained
in place,thus indicatingthat there was no damage There
present. (Id.). was no
to
damage directly reviewed. (Id.).
the cabinets in any ofthe pictures
k. The electrical work in the kitchen was unnecessary. (TrialTranscriptat 40:23-
41:10; 41:24-43:9).
1. There was no damage to the flooringoutside ofthe guest bathroom. (Id.at 27:4-
28:7).
m. The mold inside the home after the mold inspectionon October 16, 2020 did
not render the Property uninhabitable. (TrialTranscriptat 34:23-36:8; 38:12-
39:2).
n. The mold inside the home after the second mold inspectionon December 30,
2020-after the two floods had occurred-rendered the Property uninhabitable.
(Id.at
38:21-39:16).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoinghas been furnished by electronic
to: Amy E. Ruiz, Esq., Ruiz IGetman Law, PLLC, ARuiz@RuizGetmanLaw.com;
filing
SGetman@RuizGetmanLaw.com) on the 9th day of March, 2023.
Attorneysfor Defendant
Universal Property & CasualtyIns. Co.
P.O. Box 9388
Fort Lauderdale FL 33310
Page 10 of 11
Telephone: 1-833-658-8594
Facsimile: 954-958-1262
By: /s/ Patrick J. Walkington, Esq.
Patrick Walkington, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 1011470
Ryan Jamie Gala, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 85001
For Service of Court Documents onlv:
Primary: upciceservice07@universalproperty.com;
upciceservice08@universalproperty.com
Secondary: jr0531@universalproperty.com
bb 1008@universalproperty.com
Tertiary:rg0714@universalproperty.com
pw0517@universalproperty.com
For Scheduling Matters:
bb1008@universalproperty.com
:Please do not send any inquiries or scheduling
matters to upciceservice@universalpropertv.com
or upciceservice07@universalpropertv.com.
Page 11 of 11
Preview
Filing# 168438633 E-Filed 03/09/2023 10:13:07 PM IN THE CIRCUITCOURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA IRMA QURESHI, et. al., CASE NO- CACE 2021-007238 Plaintiffs, VS. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. i DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT OF EVIDENTIARY FACTS ADDUCED AT TRIAL Defendant, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY by and through the undersigned counsel, files this Statement of EvidentiaryFacts ("Universal"), Adduced at Trial. Herein, Universal notes only those facts that were presentedto the Jury through evidence and/or testimony.Universal files this Statement in support of its post-trial motions filed contemporaneously herewith. STATEMENT OF FACTS ADDUCED AT TRIAL 1. Universalissuedpolicynumber 1501-1503-2106 (the"Policy")to Plaintiffs forthe property located at 661 Alabama Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312 (the "Property") for the subjectPolicyperiod of June 5,2020 through June 5, 2021. (P's Exhibit 1 at p. 1 of UPCIC HO DEC 15 02 20; IQ Test. at 9:3-9). 2. Plaintiffs had a priorclaim with Universal in 2016 involvinga leak in the master bedroom and bathroom. The claim did not affect the kitchen. Plaintiffs were unaware of any issues with the plumbing in the guest bathroom that was affected in 2020 and the kitchen until October 14, 2020. (IQ Test. at 116:11-117:6; 130:5-131:23). Plaintiffs hired a company named Four Star Services to handle the 2016 leak. Ud. 117:7-10). Page 1 of 11 *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 03/09/2023 10:13:07 PM.**** 3 On Irma Qureshi ("Qureshi"), October 14, 2020, Plaintiff, noticed tile popping off ofthe wall in her guest bathroom and called her handyman, Braulio,to investigate it and repairthe damage. (IQ Test. at 9:25-10:13; 14:21-15:6; BE Test. at 6:15-23).Qureshi didnotknow that any leak or damage existed priorto October 14, 2020. (IQ Test. at 73:18-74:2). 4. Braulio arrived at the Property between 1pm and 2pm on October 14, 2020 and departed between 7pm and 8pm that same day. (BE Test. at 30:17-22).When Braulio arrived,he saw tiles on the wall that were popping up and cracks in the grout, and there were three tiles that were hollow. Braulio did not see any leaks outside of the wall. There were no displacedtiles on the floor. (BE Test. at 6:15-8:5; 24:15-25:3). 5. The handyman opened up the wall and found mold and water damage and a water leak. (IQ Test. at 9:25-10:13).Braulio found the leakingpipe in the wall between the vanity and the tub. (BE Test. at 13:20-14:19; P's Exhibit 3 at 12).However, Braulio also found the leaking pipe between the toilet and the vanity.(BE Test. at 32:8-17).Braulio did not remove the tile between the toilet and the vanity.(P's Exhibit 2 at photograph 3).Braulio removed the toilet, the vanity,a section of the wall where the toilet and vanitywas, the shower, the shower handle, and a section of the tile near the shower the first day he was at the Property.(BE Test at 15:9-21; BE Test at 27: 18-25).Braulio showed everythingto Irma Qureshi and advised her to call a plumber to deal with the leak. (Id.at 15:9-14; 29:19-30:14).He also turned offthe water at the Property due to the active water leak. (IQ Test. at 85:12-23; BE Test. at 31.10-16).He came back "a few days later" to conduct the remainder of the demolition in the bathroom. (BE Test. at 16:17-19; 27:4- 17).When he returned to the Property,the pipe repairhad been completed.(BE Test at 16:20- 18:7).Whenever Braulio removed the bathtub from the guest bathroom, he damaged the bathroom Page 2 of 11 floor. (BE Test at 16:2-11)1. 6. On October 15, 2020, Qureshi reporteda claim to Universal regardingthe mold damage, water damage, and water leak. (IQ Test. at 11:1-15; 75:17-77:5). Qureshi notified Universal that Plaintiff was "doing repairwork because o f the tile popping out. That [Plaintiff's] handyman believes he found mold and a water leak and water damage." lid.j. 7. Qureshi never saw an active leak. Qureshi never saw any water on the floor. (77:6- 78:3). 8 Qureshi saw discoloration indicative ofwater damage in the bathroom wall and to the kitchen cabinets. She described what she saw as being discolored and looking damp, but could not describe the allegeddamp look as anything other than being discolored. (IQ Test. at 78:4- 79:17).Qureshitold Universal in her depositionand at trial that her kitchen cabinets were damaged by the water event(79:9-80:1). 9- Plaintiffs never had a water mitigationor dry-outcompany conduct any work at the Property. (IQ Test. at 87:9-88:2). 10. Qureshi was not having remodeling done in the bathroom at the time that the mold damage was discovered. (QureshiTest at 80:25-81:20). 11. On after contactingUniversal, Qureshi contacted October 15th, SERVPRO to provide an estimate for mold remediation and do sketches of the guest bathroom and adjoining areas. (IQ Test. at 13:23-14: 10). Qureshi had not contacted SERVEPRO prior to contacting Universal. (Id.at 81:21-82:15). 12. Still on October 15111, Qureshi invited a public adjusterto the Property to discuss testified that he removed the bathtub in the guest bathroom on October 1 Braulio never specifically 14,2020. Page 3 of 11 the claim. (IQ Test. at 14:11-14; 95:8-96:2). 13. On October 16, 2020, Qureshi hired Mold Pros to conduct a mold test at the Property. (IQ Test. at 15:7-18).MoldPros arrived at the Property on October 16, 2020, at which time they set up mold detection devices and took photographs inside the guest bathroom. (P's Exhibit 2).There was no bathtub in the guest bathroom when MoldPros arrived. Ud. at 12).Mold Pros discovered mold at the Property. (IQ Test. at 15:19-20; P's Exhibit 2 at 1).Despite the presence of mold, MoldPros determined that the Property was habitable. (P'sExhibit 2 at 3). 14. On October 17,2020, Qureshi had a pipe in the guest bathroom wall replaced by a plumber hired by her husband. (IQ Test. at 17:5-22:9; 85:24-86:10; P's Exhibit 2 at 4; P's Exhibit 3).Because Universal instructed Plaintiffs not to discard any damaged property, Plaintiffs retained the damaged pipe in the backyard from October 17, 2020 until October 26,2020, when it was discarded by Plaintiffs because it was wet and muddy. Ud. at 88:3- 92:22).Plaintiffs discarded the damaged property because "once the backyard flooded, it didn't make any sense to keep them." Ud. at 140:15-141:10). 15. Around October 19, 2020, Plaintiffs moved out of the Property because the mold test "did confirm that there was mold in the house and it was all throughout the air." Plaintiffs moved into Quereshi's in-law's converted garage. (IQ Test. at 29:24-30:21). 16. Between October 15, 2020 and October 25, 2020, preparationfor the mold remediation took place at the Property.(IQ Test. at 27:14-28:4). 17. On October 25, 2020, the Property experienced a flood due to heavy rainfall. (IQ Test. at 23:19-25).The flood did not affect the guest bathroom. Ud. at 24:10-12). 18. On October 26, 2020, Universal sent Plaintiffs a request for documents which included a request for all prior claim information and proof of repairs.Qureshi did not send Page 4 of 11 Universal the prior claim information and proof of repairsbecause "you guys already had everything."Qureshi knew that Universal had the documents because Universal "forwarded our emails from 2017 to us justlike a few days ago and that had the attachments from it." (IQ Test. at 99:17-103:18). 19. On November 4, 2020, Universal inspectedthe Property. (IQ Test. at 13:8-10; 20:23-25). 20. On November 7,2020, the Property experienceda second flood due to Hurricane Irma. (IQ Test. at 28:5-15).The second flood affected the entire Property, including the guest bathroom and kitchen. (Id.at 110:15-111:12). 21. Plaintiffs filed a claim with their flood insurance provider,Bankers Insurance Company to recover the damages caused by the two floods. As part of that claim, Plaintiffs had a water mitigationcompany come out to dry out the master bedroom and bathroom after the first flood and dry outthe entire Property after the second flood. (IQTest. at 111:13-112:17).Plaintiffs received $40,000.00 in damages from their flood insurer on the flood claim for the two floods. (Id. at 114:18-115:5). 22. Sometime in mid to late December 2020, Plaintiffs terminated their relationship with the publicadjuster. (IQ Test. at 31:6-13). 23. Sometime in January, Plaintiffs retained SERVEPRO to begin the mold remediation. (IQ Test. at 32:14-23). 24. On January 7,2020, Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to Universal. ofrepresentation (QureshiTestimony at 34:5-18; P's Exhibit 4). 25. On January 15, 2021, Claim PreparationExperts, who Plaintiffs had retained as loss consultants to provide an estimate of the cost to repairthe damage to the Property, inspectedthe Page 5 of 11 the kitchen and bathroom had Property. (MR Test. at 4:7-14; 7:3-12; 17:7-10).Upon inspection, been guttedand there was 2-foot flood cut "throughoutbasically the entire property."(Id.at 7:13- 21). The flooringwas still in place in the bathroom. There was damage to the flooringin front of where the bathtub would have been. (Id.at 7:22-8:6).The flooringis continuous throughout the entire Property.(Id.at 8:7-14). 26. The damage estimate prepared included damage to the kitchen, the bathroom, and .. "then the floor,which was damaged in the bathroom that was continuous throughoutthe home. (Id.at 12: 1 -7).Each room included on the estimate is separated and the first three items in each room pertainto the removal and replacement of the flooring. (P's Exhibit 26; MR Test. at 14:25- 15:13).While the estimate does include replacementof the upper cabinets in the kitchen,it does not include replacement of the lower cabinets as "it was [Mr. Rios's] knowledge that the lower cabinets would have been included in the flood estimate." (MR Test. at 15:14-18).The total amount ofthe estimate was $41,823.01. (MR Test. at 16:9-14; P's Exhibit 26 at 11).Ofthat total, $27,963.96 was for replacement of flooringthroughout the Property, with only $2,714.73 of that going to replacethe flooringin the guest bathroom. (P's Exhibit 26; MR Test. at 14:25-15:13). Mr. Rios did not see water damage when he was at the home. (MR Test. at 14:16-24).Theestimator did not see the property or any photographs of the Property priorto draftingthe estimate. CId.at 21:20-22:15; 25:21-26:13).The estimator had no way of determiningwhat the damages were caused by, whether by the floods or otherwise. Ud. at 21:4-9; 24:19-25). 27. At the end of January 2021, Plaintiffs found an apartment in West Palm Beach in which to relocate. (IQ Test. at 47:15-48:10).Due to COVID, other rentals in Fort Lauderdale and Miami were too expensive.(IQ Test. at 48:11-19). 28. On February 18, 2021, Plaintiffs provided Universal with a sworn proo f of loss Page 6 of 11 ("SPOL") in the amount of $64,304.48, an estimate prepared by Plaintiffs' loss consultant,and certain proofs of payments, includingPlaintiffs' additional livingexpenses, and estimates. (IQ Test. at 51:6-22; 105:12-106:18; 109:3-21).The SPOL and estimate were to replacethe kitchen and the tile throughout the home and to recuperate the additional livingexpenses. Ud. at 109:3- 21). The estimate provided in support of the SPOL was the estimate prepared by Mario Rios of Claim PreparationExperts. (Id.at 106.10-18; Compare P's Exhibit 11 at 55-65 to P's Exhibit 26). 29. On or about March 2,2021, Universal sent correspondenceto Plaintiffs, which they received some days later,confirming that Universal was covering the mold damage at the Property. (IQ Test. at 60:18-61:10). 30. Shortly after March 24, 2021, Qureshi received a payment in the amount of $10,000.00 from Universal, which is the limit for mold under the Policy.(IQ Test. at 10:10-13; 65:16-66:7; P's Exhibit 10).The $10,000.00 mold limit did not cover the costs for mold testing and remediation and Plaintiffs were requiredto pay out of pocket for those expenses. (IQ Test. at 66:2-16). 31. Plaintiffs made the decision to permanently relocate in May of 2021 and were able to sell their home on June 11, 2021. (IQ Test. at 138:21-139:8). 32. Plaintiffs paid $1,180.00 for necessary electrical work in the area of the Property affected by the mold. (IQ Test. at 66:17-68:6; 70:3-72:20). 33. Plaintiffs paid their handyman, Braulio Echevarria, $3,950.00 for removing the damaged fixtures,reframing the wood due to water damage, and doing the buildback after the mold remediation was completed.(IQ Test. at 66:7-69:14; P's Exhibit 23). 34. Universal's causation expert, Diana Arana, obtained her master's degree in environmental engineeringafter having worked in the construction industryfor years. She is a Page 7 of 11 To formulate her opinionswith respect to engineer.(DA Test. at 7:9-9:14). licensed professional the Plaintiffs' claim, Ms. Arana reviewed the publicadjuster's and the field adjuster's photographs (P's Exhibit 2),and other documents related to the Claim. (DA Test. at 6:9-19; 39:4-12). 35. Ms. Arana rendered each of the following opinions to a reasonable degree of (DA Test. engineeringprobability at 38:5-10): a. There was water damage to the building components near the plumbing in the guest bathroom. (Id.at 6:20-23; 11:13-25); b. There was no evidence of an active leak in October of 2020. (Id.at 29:3-6). c. The water damage between the bathroom wall and the kitchen wall was caused Evidence of years priorto October of 2020. (Id.at 12:18-13:24; 16:22-17:5). this includes: i. The patinaon the pipes.(Id.at 13:12-22; 15:15-21). ii. The discoloration of the wood. (Id.at 13:10-12). iii. The deterioration of the wood. Ud. 15:22-16:16). iv. The fact that there was different types of pipe in the walls, which is indicative of a priorrepair. (Id.at 14:24-15:14). v. The kitchen wall, visible from within the created opening in the guest bathroom, showed no evidence of any staining, mold, or deterioration. Ud. at 20:18-21:24). d. The bathroom was being remodeled. Ud. at 13:23-14:23; Trial Transcriptat 39:21-40:22).Evidenceofthis includes: i. The toilet, which is several feet from the allegedleak,was removed and a hole was dug beneath where it previouslysat. (Id.at 14:7-15; 34:17- Page 8 of 11 35:8; P's Exhibit 2 at photo 3). ii. The tub was removed despiteit not being in the place where the tiles were coming off the walls and there was a hole dug beneath that. (DA Test. at 14:7-18). e. The plumbing in the bathroom had been replacedpriorto October of 2020. (Id at 14:24-15:14; 29:7-21; 31:2-33:21; P's Exhibit 2 at photo 4). f. At some pointpriorto October of 2020, either the bathroom was remodeled or they had a leak;as these are the only two reasons that the plumbing would have been replaced.(DA Test. at 19:19-20:17). g. There was water damage at the exterior wall that could not be dated with any precision.However, that damage was likelycaused by water from the shower enteringgaps in the tile grout. This is not connected to the priorplumbing leak, as the mold growth was above the copper water line and gravitywould have pulled any moisture down, not up. (Id.at 16:22-18:7; 35:14-36:6; P's Exhibit 2 at photo 3). h. The kitchen wall in the affected area had been previouslyreplaced,as it did not show any evidence of moisture, mold, or other damage. (DA Test. at 20:18- 21:18; 33:22-34:5). i. There was no reason to remove the kitchen base cabinets. (Id.at 25:8-12; P's Exhibit 2 at photos 26-28 & 30; Trial Transcriptat 39:21-40:22). i. There was no bathroom-leak-related damage to the kitchen cabinets. (DA Test. at 22:1-7; 23:12-25:12; 36:8-37:24; P's Exhibit 2 at photos 26-28 & 30). Page 9 of 11 ii. The only damage to the kitchen base cabinets was consistent with a pipe leak under the kitchen sink, of which there was direct evidence. (DA Test. at 23:12-25:12; P's Exhibit 2 at photos 26-28 & 30). j. There was no reason to replacethe kitchen upper cabinets. (DA Test. at 23:12- 24:1; 38:2-4).The tile in the correspondingpositionin the bathroom remained in place,thus indicatingthat there was no damage There present. (Id.). was no to damage directly reviewed. (Id.). the cabinets in any ofthe pictures k. The electrical work in the kitchen was unnecessary. (TrialTranscriptat 40:23- 41:10; 41:24-43:9). 1. There was no damage to the flooringoutside ofthe guest bathroom. (Id.at 27:4- 28:7). m. The mold inside the home after the mold inspectionon October 16, 2020 did not render the Property uninhabitable. (TrialTranscriptat 34:23-36:8; 38:12- 39:2). n. The mold inside the home after the second mold inspectionon December 30, 2020-after the two floods had occurred-rendered the Property uninhabitable. (Id.at 38:21-39:16). CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoinghas been furnished by electronic to: Amy E. Ruiz, Esq., Ruiz IGetman Law, PLLC, ARuiz@RuizGetmanLaw.com; filing SGetman@RuizGetmanLaw.com) on the 9th day of March, 2023. Attorneysfor Defendant Universal Property & CasualtyIns. Co. P.O. Box 9388 Fort Lauderdale FL 33310 Page 10 of 11 Telephone: 1-833-658-8594 Facsimile: 954-958-1262 By: /s/ Patrick J. Walkington, Esq. Patrick Walkington, Esq. Florida Bar No. 1011470 Ryan Jamie Gala, Esq. Florida Bar No. 85001 For Service of Court Documents onlv: Primary: upciceservice07@universalproperty.com; upciceservice08@universalproperty.com Secondary: jr0531@universalproperty.com bb 1008@universalproperty.com Tertiary:rg0714@universalproperty.com pw0517@universalproperty.com For Scheduling Matters: bb1008@universalproperty.com :Please do not send any inquiries or scheduling matters to upciceservice@universalpropertv.com or upciceservice07@universalpropertv.com. Page 11 of 11