Legal Document: Irma Qureshi, et al Plaintiff vs. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company Defendant

On April 09, 2021 a Motion for Directed Verdict - Party: Defendant Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company was filed involving a dispute between Guerrero, George, Qureshi, Irma, and Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, for 3 in the District Court of Broward County.

Preview
Filing# 168438597 E-Filed 03/09/2023 10:08:58 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 MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AND ENTER
JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DIRECTED
VERDICT, AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT

Defendant UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

("Universal"),by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil

Procedure 1.480 and 1.530, and the caselaw cited herein, files its Motion to Set Aside the Verdict

and Enter Judgment in Accordance Defendant's Motions for Directed Verdict. Universal also files

its Motion for Judgment Notwithstandingthe Verdict. In support, Universal states:

I. Background and Outcome of Trial

1. This is breach of insurance contract action.
a first-party

2. Plaintiffs allegedthat Universal did not fullycompensate them for allegeddamages

to their property caused by a water leak and ensuing water and mold damage, that occurred on or

about October 14, 2020. As such, Plaintiffs allegedthat Universal breached the insurance policy

issued for their property.

3. Universal denied that it breached the policy,and asserted that there was no water

damage, only mold damage, and thus Universal paid the claim in full when it paid the $10,000 in

coverage provided by the policy for loss caused by "fungi,"wet or dry rot, or bacteria.

Page 1 of 14

*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 03/09/2023 10:08:58 PM.****
4. Universal further asserted that Plaintiffs failed to comply with their post-loss

conditions under the policy,and also failed to comply with the policy'sloss settlement provision.

5. On February 21, 2023, trial commenced before this Honorable Court, which

resulted in a jury verdict awarding damages to Plaintiff on February 22,2023. A copy of the

signed Verdict Form is attached as Exhibit A.

6. Universal now moves this Court for a Directed Verdict, as explainedbelow.

II. Legal Argument

A. Motion to Set Aside the Verdict and to Enter Judgment
in Accordance with Universal's Motion for Directed Verdict

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480(b),Motion for a Directed Verdict, provides:

(b) Reservation of decision on motion. When a motion for a directed verdict
is denied or for any reason is not granted, the Court is deemed to have submitted
the action to the jury,subjectto a later determination ofthe legalquestionsraised

by the motion. Within 15 days after the return of a verdict,a party who has
timelymoved for a directed verdict,may serve a motion to set aside the verdict
and any judgment entered thereon, and to enter judgment in accordance with the
motion for a directed verdict. If a verdict was not returned,a party who has
timely moved for a directed verdict may serve a motion for judgment in
accordance with the motion for a directed verdict within 15 days after discharge
o f the jury.

When consideringa motion for directed verdict,the Court is required to evaluate the

testimony in the lightmost favorable to the non-moving party, and indulge every reasonable

inference deduced from the evidence in the non-moving party'sfavor. Goolsby v. Qazi, 847 So.

2d 1001,1002 (Fla.5thDCA 2003). If no view ofthe evidence could sustain a verdict for the non-

moving party, then a directed verdict is properlyentered. Three Keys, Ltd v.
Kennedy Funding,

Inc.,28 So. 3d 894,901 (Fla.5
th
DCA 2010); Jackson Hewitt, Inc., v. Kaman, 100 So. 3d 19,27

(Fla.2d DCA 2011); Scandinavian World Cruises (Bahamas) Ltd. v. Ergle, 525 So. 2d 1012,1014-

Page 2 of 14
15 (Fla.4th DCA), rev. denied 536 So. 2d 244 (Fla.1988);Clarkv. Better Constr. Co., Inc.,420

So. 2d 929 (Fla.3d DCA 1982).

B. The Evidence Did Not Support Plaintiffs' Damages Claim, As Plaintiffs Sold the

Property Before Making Most of Their Alleged Repairs

Universal filed a
Prior to trial, Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence, Testimony and

Argument Related to Damages Not Repaired Prior to Sale ofthe Insured Property and Diminution

in Value. See, D's Motion in Limine filed on February 15, 2023, E-filing# 1669-8570,

incorporatedherein by reference. Therein, Universal argued,with documentary and evidentiary

support, that Plaintiffs had sold the property on June 11, 2021. See, Id.,p.4. Furthermore, prior

to that sale,Plaintiffs conducted only minimal repairsto the property and never commenced the

repairscontemplated by Plaintiffs' repairestimates. This was confirmed in deposition.See, Id.,

pp. 5-7. Moreover, Plaintiff Irma Qureshi confirmed this when she testified at trial that she and

her husband ultimatelydecided to permanentlyrelocate in May 2021, and then sold their home on

Expert of Testimony of Plaintiff Irma Qureshi, pp. 38:21-139:8.
June 11,2021. Trial transcript,

At the hearing on Defendant's Motion in Limine held on February 16, 2023, the Court

grantedthat part of the Motion addressingdiminution in value, and was also inclined to grant the

Motion in its voicing its concern that Plaintiffs would get a "windfall"
entirety, if awarded these

damages after the Property.
selling Plaintiffs' counsel requestedto file a response and/or case law

to Defendant's Motion before the Court ruled, and the Court assented to counsel's request,

however counsel never filed anything to rebut Defendant's Motion. Thereafter,on February 21,

2023, the Court denied the remainder of Defendant's Motion, statingthat the issue would be

addressed via a motion for directed verdict,and ultimatelydenied that Motion when Universal's

counsel timelyraised it at trial:

Page 3 of 14
14 THE COURT: I know it's not in evidence,

15 but the property was flipped, and it was sold

16 to some property appraiser. It was flipped and
17 sold not even four months later for $370,000.

18 Obviously, somebody came in and then did all the
19 work, remodeled it, and flipped it.

20 MS. RUIZ: Right.
21 THE COURT: But we didn't let that in.

22 You-all agreed to keep it out. Then I don't see

23 any windfall here. But no one gets case law one

24 way or the other.

Trial February 21,2023, pp. 20-21.
Transcript,

The evidence demonstrated that, in fact, Plaintiffs paid four (4) vendors for repairs

ostensiblyrelated to the loss: SERVPRO; MoldPros; Lincoln Electrical Contractors, Inc.; and

Braulio Echevarria. (P'sTrial Exhibit 11 at 67-82; P's Trial Exhibit 20; and P's Trial Exhibit 23).

The payments to these vendors totaled $15,984.47, $10,854.47 of which fell under the Policy's

mold limit. U. In sum, the Court should have limited Plaintiffs to introducingevidence of

recoverable damages. Instead,this Court improperlypermittedPlaintiffs
$5,130.00 in potentially

to introduce damage and repairestimates into evidence. No view o f this evidence could support

that Plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages other than what is contemplated in the policy.

By sellingthe Property,Plaintiffs lost any rightto recover damages other than for those

invoices that they paid to the aforementioned This is so because (1) the

Policy'sLoss Payment provisionties Plaintiffs' damages to repairsactuallymade; and (2) the

Policy restricts Plaintiffs from recovering for diminution in value.

i. The Policv's Loss Pavment Provision Governs Plaintiffs' Damages.

In this breach of contract action,as in any other,the language ofthe contract controls. See,

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Menendez, 70 So. 3d 566, 569 (Fla. 2011)-,Kokhan v. Auto Club

Ins. Co. ofFlorida,297 So. 3d 570,572 (Fla.4th DCA 2020); Vazquez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.,

Page 4 of 14
304 So. 3d 1280, 1284 (Fla.3d DCA 2020). Here, the Policy contains a "Loss Settlement'
..

provisionthat governs the valuation of Plaintiffs covered property losses:

D. Loss Settlement
In this Condition D., the terms cost to repair o, f
replace and replacement cost do not include the i
increased costs incurred to comply with the f
enforcement of any ordinanc:e or law, except to
f
the exlent that coverage for these increased t
costs is provided in Additional Coverage @
11. Ordinance Or Law under Section I
- Property i

Coverages. Additionally, lhe vak.ation of any ,

covered property losses does not indude and we
not pay any amount for diminution in value".
will f
Covered p,operty losses are settled as follows:

2. Buildings and screened enclosures covered i

under Coverage A or B at replacement cost S

without deduction for depreciation, subjecl to
the following: Y-

a. If, atthe time of loss, the amount of k-

insurance in this policy on the damaged
building is 80%
or more of the full
replacement cost of the building l
immediately before the ross, we will pay ?
the cost tn repair or replace, withowl t
deduction for depreciation, but not more E

than the least of the following amounts: f

(1) The limit of liabilityunder this policy
that applies to the building,

(2) The replacement cost of thal paM of
the building damaged with materid of
like kind and qua?ty and for like use
or

(3) The necessary amount actually spent
to repair or replace Lhe damaged

building.
If the building is rebuilt al a new
premises, the cost descnbed in (2) above
is limited to the cost whicn would have

been incurred if the building had been )
built at the originalpremises. !:

P's Exhibit 1, UPCIC HO3 15 05 18, p. 21. As it evident, the provision states that the most

Universal will pay for damage to a buildingis the lesser of three amounts: (1)the policylimit;(2)

the replacement cost of the damaged portion of the building;or (3) the "necessary amount

"
actually spent' to repairthe damaged portiono f the building.Id. Here, the lesser o f these three

Page 5 of 14
amounts is,at most, $5,130.00. Despite this,Plaintiffs were permittedto introduce evidence at

trial of damages far greater than the "necessaryamount actuallyspent" to conduct repairs.This

was error.

ii. The Policv Does Not Cover Diminution In Value.

The Policy does not cover "diminution in value," which the Policy defines as follows:

5. "Diminution in value" means any reduction in
3
value of any covered property prior to or i
following repair or replacement as compared
to the value of that property immediately t
before the loss.

Id., UPCIC HO3 15 05 18, p. 4. Notably, diminution in value refers both to repaired and

unrepairedproperty followinga loss. The Policygoes on to state that Universal it does not provide

coverage for "diminution in value:"

SECTION I - PERILS INSURED AGAINST
A. Coverage A - Dwelling And Coverage B -
Other Structures
1. We insure against direct physical loss to :
property described in Coverages A and B. 1
However, loss does not include and we will f-
not pay for any "diminution in value".

Id.,UPCIC HO3 15 05 18, p. 1. Combining these two provisions,
it is clear that the Policyinsures

againstdirect physicalloss to property described in Coverages A and B, however, loss does not

include, and we will not pay for, any reduction in value of any covered property prior to or

followingrepairor replacement as compared to the value of that property immediately before the

loss.

In the Loss Settlement provision,the Policy reinforces that it does not cover "diminution

in value":

Page 6 of 14
D. Loss Settlement
In this Condition D., the terms cost to repair or

replace and replacement cost do not include the
increased costs incurred to comply with the
enforcement of any ordinance or law. except to l
the exlent that coverage for these increased t

costs is provided in Additional Coverage E
11. Ordinance Or Law under Section I - Property l
Coverages. Additionally Lhe valiation of any ?:
covered property losses does not indude and
wp i
will not pay any amount for Udiminution in valuel i
Covered property losses are settled as follows:

Id.,UPCIC HO3 15 05 18, p. 21. Based on the foregoing,the Policy clearlydoes not cover-and

Plaintiffs agreed that Universal will not pay for-diminution in value.

Where an insurance policy does not cover diminution in value, an insured cannot recover

damages for diminution in value. To be clear,Florida's Supreme Court has addressed this very

issue :

As no coverage for diminished value existsunder this contract of insurance,this Court
certainly cannot create coverage out of whole cloth. In contract interpretation cases,
the issue to be addressed is not what this Court or the petitionerwould preferthat the
policy cover, but what losses the mutually agreed-upon contractual language covers.
Thus, even ifwe were inclined to do so, we could not interpret
the policyin accordance
assertions. The contract of insurance before us clearlydoes not
with the petitioner's
cover a covered automobile's loss of value due to an accident. Should partiesin the
situation wish to obtain coverage for diminishment in value due to accident,
petitioner's
they may either contract for the coverage initially,or urge the Legislatureto mandate

coverage through the enactment of a statute. Certainly,however, we cannot
manufacture coverage that does not exist.

Sieglev. ProgressiveConsumers Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 732, 739-40 (Fla.2002) (internal
quotations

and citations omitted);see also, Dea v. PH Fort Myers, LLC, 108 So. 3d 1204 (Fla.2d DCA 2017)

a contract, the
("When interpreting court must first examine the plainlanguage of the contract for

evidence of the parties'intent. Thus, when the terms of a voluntary contract are clear and

unambiguous, as here, the contractingpartiesare bound by those terms, and a court is powerless

Page 7 of 14
to rewrite the contract to make it more reasonable or advantageous for one of the contracting

parties.") citations omitted);Simon
(internal v. Simon, 91 So. 3d 214 (Fla.4th DCA 2012) (' Lwe
'ci i r

arel not empowered to rewrite a clear and unambiguous provision,nor should [wei attempt to

make an otherwise valid contract more reasonable for one of the parties.")
(internalcitations

omitted);Obara v. State, 958 So. 2d 1019 (Fla.5th DCA 2007).
In Florida, breach of contract damages are measured in terms of the amount the non-

breachingparty would have received had the breach not occurred minus those expenses not yet

incurred. See, Gruskin v. Holiday Pools of Broward, Inc., 44% So. ld 513, 513 (Ba. 4th DCA
1984) ("[T]hemeasure of damages is the amount which the innocent party would have received if

the contract had been performed, less any deductions for expenses not yet incurred.")
(quoting

Adams v.
Dre)*s Interstate Development Corp., 352 So.2d 76 at 78 (Fla.4th DCA 1977). Thus,

Plaintiffs damages from Universal's allegedbreach could only have been calculated in terms of

(1) Plaintiffs' out-of-pocketlosses to conduct repairs;
plus (2)losses incurred by Plaintiffs in the

sale of the Property due to the diminished value of the asset. Universal does not cover the latter,

as the Policy makes clear. Thus, Universal should be granted directed verdict on this issue, as

there is no view of the evidence that could sustain Plaintiffs' verdict.

C. The Evidence Did Not Support Plaintiffs' Claim for Additional Living Expenses

Plaintiffs sought damages for Additional Living Expenses ("ALE"). The Policy explains

what ALE losses are, and how they are to be determined:

Page 8 of 14
E. Coverage D - Loss Of Use
for Coverage D
The limit of liability is the total
limit for the coverages in 1. Additional Living
Expense, 2. Fair Rental Value and 3. Civil

Authority Prohibits Use below.
1. Additional Living Expense
If a loss covered under Section I makes that
part of the "residence premises" where you
reside not fit to live in, we cover the
Additional Living Expense, meaning any

necessary increase in living expenses
incurred by you so that your household can
maintain its normal standard of living.

Payment will be for the shortest time required
to repair or replace the damage or, if you
permanently relocate, the shortest time
required for your household to settle
elsewhere.

P's Exhibit 1, UPCIC HO3 15 05 18, p. 9.

PlaintiffIrma Qureshi testified that,followingthe loss,Plaintiffs moved out ofthe property

and into Ms. Qureshi's in-laws' garage, which had been converted into a bedroom. They moved,

Plaintiff testified,
after receivingthe results of the mold testing,
which confirmed the presence of

Excerpt of Testimony of Irma Qureshi,
mold. Trial Transcript, p. 30: 1-16. However, the Mold

Removal Protocol prepared by Mold Pros, after they inspectedthe property on October 16,2020,

and introduced into evidence, clearlystated that,while mold was discovered in the property, "in

[Mold Pros'I professionalopinion this property is habitable." Id. Thus, Plaintiff did not present

any evidence that the loss made the property "not fit to live in,"which would triggerthe Policy's

ALE coverage. P's Exhibit 1, UPCIC HO3 15 05 18, p. 9.

Ms. Qureshi further testified that at the end of January 2021, Plaintiffs found an apartment

in West Palm Beach in which to live. Trial Excerpt of Testimony of Irma Qureshi, pp.
Transcript,

47:15-48:10. However, this was qfterthe property suffered two floods caused by heavy rains,the

first on October 25, 2020, Id.,23:19-25, and the second on November 7, 2020, Id., at 28:5-15.

Both of these floods described by Ms. Qureshi occurred afterthe loss reported to Universal.

Page 9 of 14
Plaintiffs ultimatelydecided to permanently relocate in May 2021, and then, as explainedabove,

soldtheirhome on June 11,2021. U., pp. 38:21-139:8.

As the evidence described above demonstrates, the mold inside the home, as detected by

Mold Pros duringtheir assessment on October 16,2020, did not render the Property uninhabitable,

as clearlystated in their Mold Removal Protocol. The mold inside the home after the second mold

inspectionon December 30,2020, rendered the Property uninhabitable,but this occurred after the

two floods caused by heavy rains. Therefore, the evidence presentedat trial warrants a directed

verdict in Universal's favor on Plaintiffs' ALE claim.

Ms. Quershi also testified that Plaintiffs moved out oftheir home because they lost the use

of their kitchen. Id.,pp. 38:21-139:8. However, Universal's causation expert, Diana Arana, P.E.,

and Plaintiffs did
testified at trial, not present their own expert to rebut Ms. Arana. Ms. Arana

testified that,in her opinion,the water damage between the bathroom wall and the kitchen wall

had occurred years priorto October of2020. Trial Testimony of Diana Arana, p. 12:18-
transcript,

13:24; 16:22-17:5. Ms. Arana further testified thatthe inside ofthe kitchen wall,which was visible

from within the created opening in the guest bathroom, did not show evidence of any staining,

mold, or deterioration. Id at 20:18-21:24. Furthermore, Ms. Arana testified that there was no

reason to remove the kitchen base cabinets,Id at 25:8-12; P's Exhibit 2, photos 26-28 & 30; Trial

Transcriptat 39:21-40:22, or the upper cabinets,Testimony of Diana Arana, 23:12-24:1; 38:2-4.

In sum, the evidence introduced at trial demonstrates that Universal was entitled to a directed

verdict.

D. The Evidence Did Not Establish That A Water Loss Occurred During the Policy
Period

Page 10 of 14
Ms. Qureshi testified that she never saw an active water leak,nor did she see any water on

Excerpt of Testimony of Irma Qureshi,
the floor at the time that the allegedloss. Trial Transcript,

pp. 77:6-78:3.

Qureshi saw discoloration indicative of water 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).

Plaintiff testified that she did not see a leak nor did she see any water on the floor. (Factsat 117).

Braulio was clear,however, that he showed her the issues in the bathroom and told her to call the

plumber. (Factsat 75).

Conversely,Plaintiffs did not introduce into evidence any photographs or videos of any

leak. The pipe that they claimed to have removed and replaced,and subsequently stored in their

backyard, was discarded because "once the backyard flooded, it didn't make any sense to keep

them." Plaintiffs never introduced any photograph or video that depictedactual,current moisture

in or around any allegedleak.

In addition,Universal's causation expert Diana Arana testified that it was impossible for

the leak to have been current at the time the photographs were taken, as the shared kitchen wall

showed no discoloration,
mold, or moisture damage. (Factsat 735(c)(v)and 735(h)).In fact,the

expert pointedout the area in the photos that lacked damage that would be consistent with a current

leak:

Page 11 of 14
4
?4. T.7ia
1
7.
..

As depicted in this photograph, and as Ms. Arana testified,the adjoiningkitchen wall had

mold damage
absolutelyno damage. Given that,only a priorleak could have caused the significant

to the bathroom wall,the wood supports, and the tile on the other side of Durock. In fact,the leak
1

was so bad that portionsof the wood had deteriorated to the pointof needing to be replaced...
yet

the kitchen wall Plaintiffs did not present their own causation
was unscathed. (Factsat ll35(c)(iii).

expert.

the Verdict Form submitted to the Jury,over Universal's objections,
Finally, asked the jury

the following questions,both ofwhich the jury answered "Yes":

Did the Plaintiffsprove by the greater weight of the evidence that the property
incurred a direct physicalloss within the policyperiodJune 5,2020 to June 5,2021?

Did the prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the property
Plaintiffs
incurred a direct physicalloss due to constant or repeated seepage or leakage of
water or steam or the presence of condensation ofhumidity,moisture or vapor, over
a periodof weeks, months or years, and that such a seepage or leakageof water or
steam or the presence or [sic]condensation ofhumidity, moisture or vapor, and the
resultingdamage is unknown to all insureds and is hidden within the walls or
ceilingsor beneath the floors or above the ceilingsof a structure?

1
Braulio Echevarria testified that the tile in the bathroom was attached to Durock, which unlike
drywall,"is more of a concrete, hard substance." (BE Test. at 23:10-23).

Page 12 of 14
Neither of these questionsask the jury to determine whether a water leak occurred during the

Policy period.As such, this Court directinga verdict on that issue would not run contrary to the

Jury'sverdict.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, Universal seeks an order settingaside the verdict,entering

judgment in accordance with its motion for a directed verdict,or order a new trial,and any other

relief as is justand proper.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoinghas been furnished by electronic
filingto: Amy E. Ruiz, Esq., Ruiz IGetman Law, PLLC, ARuiz@RuizGetmanLaw.com;
SGetman@RuizGetmanLaw.com) on the 9th day of March, 2023.

Attorneysfor Defendant
Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co.
P.O. Box 9388
Fort Lauderdale FL 33310

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

Page 13 of 14
:Please do not send any inquiriesor scheduling
matters to upciceservice@universalpropertv.com
or upciceservice07@universalpropertv.com.

Page 14 of 14
-/.
*
]-[Lrr). BRI -,NART.?-'IJ[I'?Ti'. i-L Brerld.a[) ror,1,.In. I LE RK 22-t 'ICI 4 11' IN' PM
i3

IN TI IE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE.
] 7th JCD]CIAI. CIRaJIT IN AND FOR

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
IRMA QURESHT. an individual, and GENEIUL JURISDICTION DIVISION
GEORGF. GUERRFRO. an individual.
CASINO. CACE 2021-007238 1(JIM

Plaintiffs.

'I.. V. rlied il, UNi=.i i...i.
CLERK OF THE,C]HCJJIT COURT
UNIVERSAL PROPFRTY & CASI IAI.TY BN 02/2212?J
INS URANCE COMPAN Y. a Florida .f
corporation. I
[kfcndan:,
i

VERDICT

We. the jury. return the fol [owing verdicr

I. Did the Plaimiffs pruve by the grc,Iler ?ight of the evidence Ihat the r?roperty incurred
a direct physicalloss within the polic, periodJune 5,2020 to June 5. 202 I?

Yes r No

2. Did the Plulnfiff, l]-tegreacer weighl of the evidence Ihw zhe property incurred
prove by
due to constant or repeated scepage or teakage of water or steam Dr
a direct physical less
Ihc presence or vondcnsation of humidity. moisture or vapor, ovcr a period of wccks.
months or years. and that such a seepage or leakage of wltter or steam or rhe presence or
condcrwwion nt' humidity, moisture or vapor. and the resultingdamage is unknown to alt
insureds and ig hidden wilhin ehe walls or ce:lings or beneath Ihe floors or above the
vcilingsofa blruclure?

Ye5 No

If yo.ranswer to Q.estions I or 2 h ?Ye,", please proceed to ..,er Que.tio. No.
3. if you annver **No- lo bath Questit,nj ] Ind 2, your vm#d is fur Univenil
Property & Casuilty Iasurance Cumpiny. Pluw,kip Quntiom 3 m?d 4, iign amd
d#le Ih, Verdkt Form ma[1 remm il io ihe B,iliff.

EXHIBITA
... '
FILE D BROW.AR[] COUNTY. Fl. Orenda Ii. Form,in, (.-LI'.RK Z 24 24:21 -1 1').l. 'P'd

3. Did Universal Property and Casuahy Insurance Company prove by Thc grcaler weight of
the n-idence that the Plaintiffs fuilcd ro subsulntjallycomply wilh all of their post-loss
obligalion ,-onditinns in the insunncc policy Iproviding requested documcnis. :imc]Y
providing a valid 5?rn proof of 10&4, shuwing Ihe damaged properly and cause of Ioss.
bf reasonably possible)and thai such failute to subseantiallycornply caused prejudiceto
Univcrsal Properly & Casualty Insurance Company?

Yes No /
H your u?wtr i* "No-, plea,e procc,d to ,-wer Question Nu. 4. If your answer is
?YM". Ili.n yo.rwrdicl for Universit Property & Cise,lty Inwuranee Comp..y.
iB

Please skip Question No. 4, sign Ind date Ih, V.rd?cl FDrm and re?rn il :o the
B.iliff.

4. Whal is the toial amount of damages excluding mold (fungi.wc? or dry rel or bactcria)
thnt the Plaintiffs are enikled to recover from Univcnal Prnperry & Casuttlt>'
insurance
Company under Ihc 5ubjcclpolicy?

$
571836.83
Pleist sig, and date the Verdi?L Form(???
imdinte to Ihe Bmiliff Ihil you hiw
re,chud / verdict

Mympnssv? ,
Dated this c??--?v
of February2023.

Case Info

Judge

Haimes, David A. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 09, 2023

Case Filing Date

April 09, 2021

County

Parties

Francisco, Touron, III Attorney for the Plaintiff
Galka, Ryan Jamie Attorney for the Defendant
Guerrero, George Plaintiff
Qureshi, Irma Plaintiff
Ruiz, Amy E Attorney for the Plaintiff
Strudwick, Joshua, ESQ. Attorney for the Defendant
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company Defendant
Lisset Trujillo Attorneys for Defendants
Steven Getman Attorney
Edilsa Ruiz Attorney
Patrick Walkington Attorney
David Noel Attorney
Kara Link Attorney
Vincent Sullivan Attorney
Antonio de Rey Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for Irma Qureshi, et al Plaintiff vs. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company Defendant

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties