Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal Reverses Inconsistent Final Judgment

By Douglas M. Cohen

In Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tsirnikas, No. 2D22-3539, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 1362 (2d DCA Feb. 23, 2024), Universal appealed a final judgment in favor of the insured following a jury trial on whether Universal breached its homeowner’s policy be refusing to cover damage to the insured’s property. Among the defenses asserted by Universal, it claimed that the damages were not covered by the terms of the policy. Although the jury found that the loss was not covered by the policy, the court entered judgment in favor of the insured for damages. The 2nd DCA reversed the final judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Universal.

The jury had answered six questions on the verdict form. The 2nd DCA noted that verdict form questions five and six, identified below, were inconsistent, in that question five identified a factual and legal resolution finding that the damage was due to an excepted cause of loss and/or an excluded cause of loss, or both, and that Universal prevailed. Specifically, verdict form question five asked, “Did the Defendant establish by the greater weight of the evidence that the alleged damage to the dock was the result of an excepted and/or excluded cause of loss?” The jury answered that it was.

Verdict from question six asked “What is the cost to repair the dock at actual cash value?” The jury answered this question, although the 2nd DCA noted the inquiry posed in question six was inconsistent with the jury’s finding in question five, that the loss was excepted/excluded from the policy. The trial court entered final judgement in favor of the insured based on the answer to question six.

On appeal, the 2nd DCA Court noted that a legally inconsistent verdict is defined as “one which contains two or more findings, which as a matter of law cannot co-exist”, and that “as a matter of law, a judgment for damages cannot be entered when there is no finding of liability”. Here, where the jury found that damage was to excepted/excluded cause of loss, there was no liability, and the award of damage was inconsistent with that finding. The 2nd DCA remanded the case to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Universal.