Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal Affirms Judgment in Favor of Policyholder on Hurricane Irma Claim, Reverses Judgment on Ceiling Collapse Claim Under Same Policy

By Tony Pagán Jr.

In Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Caboverde, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed two separate insurance claims under the same policy involving a 2016 ceiling collapse claim and a 2019 Hurricane Irma claim.

Following the circuit court’s entry of final judgment in favor of the policyholders on both claims, the carrier appealed arguing that the lower court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on the policyholders’ failure to meet their burden of proof on each claim.

On the 2016 ceiling collapse claim, the Court reversed the circuit court’s holding and remanded for entry of final judgment in favor of the carrier, finding that even if the policyholders met their burden of proving the alleged ceiling collapse occurred (citing the policy’s definition of “collapse”), the policyholders did not meet their burden of proving hidden and unknown decay or insect (termite) damage had caused the ceiling collapse, as the policy required.

As for the policyholders’ 2019 Hurricane Irma claim, the Court held that the policyholders had in fact met their burden of proof, thereby affirming the circuit court’s final judgment on that claim.

Of note, and in support of the carrier’s directed verdict motions and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the only witness who testified about termite damage inside the property was the policyholders’ contractor expert, who did not inspect the home until June 2021 – nearly five years after the alleged ceiling collapse. Further, the contractor expert admitted he was not a termite expert, and while he “would suspect that takes many, many months to get to th[e] type of decay” which he found in the instant property, he “just [did not] know how long the[] [termites] ha[d] been there, nor did [he] test the house for termites.”