Florida Third District Court of Appeal Finds Plumbing Damages Claimed by Plaintiff Unsupported by Evidence at Trial
By Kelly M. Vogt
In Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Diaz-Torres, No. 3D24-0552 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 1, 2025), the Third District Court of Appeal reviewed and remanded an amended final judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff against Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The plaintiff filed a breach of contract claim, claiming Universal underpaid a property damage loss from a 2017 incident. Universal determined the actual cash value (ACV) of the damage to be $29,527.06, while the plaintiff’s public adjuster presented a much higher estimate. The jury returned a $225,000 verdict in favor of the plaintiff, prompting Universal to file a motion for remittitur, which the trial court denied.
On appeal, Universal challenged the denial of its remittitur motion, arguing that the damages award was unsupported by competent evidence. The appellate court agreed, noting that only two pieces of competent evidence were presented at trial: Universal’s estimate of $29,527.06 and the plumbing expert’s $40,680 estimate (less $1,800 conceded as unrelated). The plaintiff’s public adjuster’s $224,810.66 estimate was excluded because it improperly included “matching costs,” which the court determined are not compensable unless repairs are performed.
The Third DCA emphasized that a plaintiff bears the burden of presenting evidence justifying a definite amount of damages. The court cited precedent holding that jury awards cannot rest on speculation and that remittitur is proper when a verdict exceeds the amount supported by competent evidence. Because the plaintiff’s remaining admissible evidence totaled only $70,207.06, the jury’s $225,000 verdict was clearly excessive and could not logically be reached without improper speculation on behalf of the jury.
Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the judgment in part, reversed the denial of remittitur, and remanded with instructions to reduce damages to $70,207.06. In doing so, the court emphasized that jury verdicts must align with the evidence presented at trial.
This decision reinforces that Florida courts will strictly limit damage awards to amounts supported by competent evidence and policy terms, underscoring the importance of excluding speculative estimates, particularly those including non-recoverable costs.
Kelly M. Vogt