---
title: "Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem"
meta:
  "og:title": " Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem"
---

Jury Verdict Categories

### **Jury Verdict Articles**

Explore jury verdict articles and case studies.

## **Search**

## **Filters**

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Full_Circle_Exterior_Solutions.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/nc-homeowner-ordered-to-pay-98k-for-roofing-fraud-)

[**Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/contract) [**Consumer protection**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/consumer-protection)

March 13, 2026

###### [NC Homeowner Ordered to Pay $98K for Roofing Fraud](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/nc-homeowner-ordered-to-pay-98k-for-roofing-fraud-)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/nc-homeowner-ordered-to-pay-98k-for-roofing-fraud-)

What began as a standard $18,000 roof replacement and solar panel reinstallation in Clemmons, North Carolina, spiraled into a high-stakes legal battle over contractor fraud and insurance payouts. Full Circle Exterior Solutions, LLC alleged that after completing work in August 2023, homeowner Brian Michael Mangual manipulated the company into signing a lien waiver by claiming his insurer, USAA, required it before releasing funds. Once the contractor relinquished its legal right to a property lien, the homeowner allegedly withheld the final $5,000 payment despite having received over $25,000 from his insurance provider. While the defense argued the work was defective and damaged the home’s energy efficiency, a Johnston County jury found the homeowner's conduct was intentionally deceptive. On September 26, 2025, the jury returned a unanimous verdict, ordering the Defendant to pay $98,106.08 in punitive damages—nearly four times the amount originally sought in the complaint.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/PILOT_THOMAS.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/sf-oil-spill-settlement-thomas-v-city-of-san-francisco)

[**Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/contract) [**Environmental and Natural Resource Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/environmental-and-natural-resource-law)

February 4, 2026

###### [SF Oil Spill Settlement: Thomas v. City of San Francisco](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/sf-oil-spill-settlement-thomas-v-city-of-san-francisco)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/sf-oil-spill-settlement-thomas-v-city-of-san-francisco)

The legal battle between Pilot Thomas Logistics (PTL) and the City and County of San Francisco began after a persistent oil sheen appeared on the San Francisco Bay in August 2020. Federal investigations by the EPA traced the leak to an underground pipeline near Hyde Street Harbor, which PTL operated but the Port of San Francisco had designed decades earlier. PTL alleged that the city provided a defective facility and failed to maintain a functional leak-detection system, leading to a massive red-dye biodiesel spill. This incident forced the closure of PTL’s marine fuel terminal and triggered extensive cleanup and remediation costs. While the city argued that PTL was responsible for the leak due to operational negligence, the parties ultimately reached a $5,000,000 settlement to resolve claims of breach of contract, negligence, and environmental indemnity.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Heckman.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/upmc-north-penn-whistleblower-verdict-heckman-wins-damages)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/contract)

February 4, 2026

###### [UPMC & North Penn Whistleblower Verdict: Heckman Wins Damages](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/upmc-north-penn-whistleblower-verdict-heckman-wins-damages)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/upmc-north-penn-whistleblower-verdict-heckman-wins-damages)

Dr. Matthew Heckman, a family physician specialized in obstetrics, filed a lawsuit against UPMC Susquehanna and North Penn Comprehensive Health Services following his termination in April 2020. Dr. Heckman, who had served as Chief Medical Officer, alleged he was fired for blowing the whistle on what he described as UPMC’s illegal corporate control over North Penn, a Federally Qualified Health Center. He claimed the health system prioritized profits over rural patient care, specifically regarding obstetric services and clinic closures during the pandemic. The Defendants denied these claims, asserting that Dr. Heckman was the one who breached his contractual duties. On December 4, 2025, a federal jury in Pennsylvania found that while a contract existed and a breach occurred, the Defendants' actions resulted in $40,000 in damages for the Plaintiff.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Eddy_M_Villasante1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/jury-rejects-citizens-insurance-defense-in-79k-storm-claim)

[**Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/contract) [**Insurance Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law)

January 27, 2026

###### [Jury Rejects Citizens Insurance Defense in $79K Storm Claim](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/jury-rejects-citizens-insurance-defense-in-79k-storm-claim)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/jury-rejects-citizens-insurance-defense-in-79k-storm-claim)

In the matter of Brayan Yarini Villasante, et al. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, homeowners successfully challenged a claim denial involving their Pompano Beach property. The plaintiffs alleged that a windstorm on June 30, 2023, caused significant physical damage covered under their "all risk" policy. Despite an estimated repair cost of $79,343.00, Citizens Property Insurance refused to pay, citing several exclusions. The insurer's defense rested on the claim that the interior damage was the result of long-term wear and tear, age-related deterioration, and surface water seeping through foundation cracks rather than a storm-related opening. However, during the December 2025 trial, the jury found that the plaintiffs sufficiently proved the loss was caused by a windstorm. Crucially, the jury also ruled that the defendant failed to prove that flood or surface water was responsible for the interior damages, leading to a verdict in favor of the homeowners.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/HUSSAIN_SYED_SAJID1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/judge-issues-directed-verdict-for-msbf-in-hussain-lawsuit)

[**Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/contract)

November 11, 2025

###### [Judge Issues Directed Verdict for MSBF in Hussain Lawsuit](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/judge-issues-directed-verdict-for-msbf-in-hussain-lawsuit)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/judge-issues-directed-verdict-for-msbf-in-hussain-lawsuit)

In a decisive legal maneuver that ended the trial before the jury could deliberate, the Superior Court of Connecticut issued a Directed Verdict in the civil matter of Syed Sajid Hussain v. MSBF Corporation d/b/a MSBF, Inc., et al. The plaintiff, Syed Sajid Hussain, had pursued a lawsuit against the corporation and its principals, Babar Ali Khan, Sadia Hussain, and Syed Amir Hussain, claiming they had breached their agreements and engaged in financial misconduct. However, at the close of evidence on October 28, 2025, the court intervened, ruling that Mr. Hussain failed to present the necessary proof to support the majority of his claims. The judge formally directed the jury to find in favor of the defendants on a sweeping twenty-three counts, effectively dismissing the plaintiff’s core claims of contract breach, statutory theft, and fraudulent transfer.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/herman-law-group-v-peter-herman-414k-jury-award)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/contract)

October 8, 2025

###### [Herman Law Group v. Peter Herman: $414K Jury Award](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/herman-law-group-v-peter-herman-414k-jury-award)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/herman-law-group-v-peter-herman-414k-jury-award)

The long-running legal feud between family members at The Herman Law Group, P.A. came to an end when a Broward County jury ruled in favor of attorney Peter G. Herman and his firm, Peter Herman, P.A. The jury found that The Herman Law Group failed to return funds owed to Herman from multiple client cases, including Flipface and Farkas, totaling $414,043.52 in damages. The case began after Herman left the Fort Lauderdale firm in 2020, sparking claims and counterclaims over unpaid fees, alleged mismanagement, and breach of contract. The verdict issued on August 12, 2025, concluded that the firm wrongfully withheld Herman’s earnings from several matters, bringing a close to a years-long dispute over attorney compensation and firm finances.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/brown-v-mcgoldrick-ct-lawyer-fee-dispute-verdict)

[**Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/contract) [**Legal Malpractice**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/legal-malpractice)

September 3, 2025

###### [Brown v. McGoldrick: CT Lawyer Fee Dispute Verdict](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/brown-v-mcgoldrick-ct-lawyer-fee-dispute-verdict)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/brown-v-mcgoldrick-ct-lawyer-fee-dispute-verdict)

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/florida-jury-awards-82k-in-legal-fee-dispute-case)

[**Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/contract) [**Unjust enrichment**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/unjust-enrichment)

June 27, 2025

###### [Florida Jury Awards $82K in Legal Fee Dispute Case](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/florida-jury-awards-82k-in-legal-fee-dispute-case)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/florida-jury-awards-82k-in-legal-fee-dispute-case)

In a business dispute over unpaid legal fees, a Florida jury ruled in favor of PWBC, LLC, awarding $82,457.34 against The Manors Club, Inc. The case stemmed from a 2020 retainer agreement with law firm Katzman Chandler, which later assigned its claim to PWBC. The Manors Club never disputed invoices for legal services performed but failed to pay. At trial, PWBC presented itemized bills, email records, and the signed agreement, asserting claims for breach of contract, open account, account stated, and unjust enrichment. The defense argued the contract lacked board approval and challenged the fees’ validity. On April 16, 2025, the jury found the agreement enforceable, the services properly rendered, and the defendant liable for full payment.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/property-dispute-lawsuit-against-fieldstone-llc-settled-for-287k)

[**Fraud**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/fraud) [**Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/contract)

June 23, 2025

###### [Property Dispute Lawsuit Against Fieldstone LLC Settled for $287K](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/property-dispute-lawsuit-against-fieldstone-llc-settled-for-287k)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/property-dispute-lawsuit-against-fieldstone-llc-settled-for-287k)

Rachele and Carmine Malangone sued Fieldstone, LLC and others over misrepresentations about land they purchased to build a two-bedroom home. Fieldstone failed to secure necessary approvals, leading to financial loss and emotional distress. On March 28, 2025, the jury awarded the Plaintiffs $287,104.48 against Fieldstone and $210,000.00 against Connecticut Concrete Solutions, LLC for fraud and other claims.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/jury-backs-seller-in-connecticut-real-estate-dispute)

[**Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/contract) [**Real Property Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/category/real-property-law)

June 19, 2025

###### [Jury Backs Seller in Connecticut Real Estate Dispute](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/jury-backs-seller-in-connecticut-real-estate-dispute)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/contract/jury-verdict/jury-backs-seller-in-connecticut-real-estate-dispute)

A Connecticut jury ruled in favor of Charles Weaver in a high-stakes real estate contract dispute, finding no breach in his decision to back out of a $225,000 home sale. Plaintiff Quinn Isaac had sued for $137,000 in damages after Weaver sold the same property months later for $362,000. The jury concluded the agreement had either been lawfully terminated or did not require Weaver to complete the sale, resulting in zero compensation for the buyer.

1

2

3