---
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/SANTIAGO_JESUS.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/florida-jury-denies-storm-damage-claim-for-windermere-home)

[**Breach of Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-contract-jury-verdicts-settlements) [**Insurance Dispute**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute)

March 25, 2026

###### [Florida Jury Denies Storm Damage Claim for Windermere Home](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/florida-jury-denies-storm-damage-claim-for-windermere-home)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/florida-jury-denies-storm-damage-claim-for-windermere-home)

In a significant victory for property insurers, an Orange County jury returned a defense verdict in a breach of contract lawsuit brought by Jesus and Norma Santiago against First Protective Insurance Company. The homeowners claimed their Windermere residence suffered direct physical loss due to wind or hail between 2021 and 2022, resulting in interior ceiling leaks. However, the defense presented engineering evidence showing the damage actually stemmed from age-related wear, construction defects, and poor maintenance. The jury ultimately found that no covered loss occurred during the policy period, relieving the insurer of any obligation to pay the claim.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Nadine_Casella1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/florida-jury-awards-30k-in-insurance-breach-case-)

[**Breach of Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-contract-jury-verdicts-settlements) [**Insurance Dispute**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute)

February 13, 2026

###### [Florida Jury Awards $30K in Insurance Breach Case](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/florida-jury-awards-30k-in-insurance-breach-case-)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/florida-jury-awards-30k-in-insurance-breach-case-)

A Broward County jury found Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company liable for breach of contract after the insurer failed to pay full benefits for water damage at a Sunrise, Florida home. The November 2025 verdict awarded homeowners Nadine and Stephen Casella $53,099.30 in total damages, resulting in a final judgment of $30,093.99 including prejudgment interest. The case centered on a disputed April 2023 weather-related water damage claim where the insurer initially paid only $18,470.88 for building repairs despite the homeowners' assertion that costs far exceeded that amount.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/JASMIN_VILLAFLOR.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/jury-rules-for-insurer-in-florida-windstorm-damage-dispute)

[**Breach of Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-contract-jury-verdicts-settlements) [**Insurance Dispute**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute)

December 31, 2025

###### [Jury Rules for Insurer in Florida Windstorm Damage Dispute](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/jury-rules-for-insurer-in-florida-windstorm-damage-dispute)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/jury-rules-for-insurer-in-florida-windstorm-damage-dispute)

A Miami-Dade County jury delivered a defense verdict in favor of People's Trust Insurance Company on July 29, 2025. Homeowners Jasmine Villaflor and Margarita Hijosa claimed a September 2022 windstorm damaged their residential property at 5920 SW 157th Place, Miami. Their public adjuster estimated repairs at $100,731.52, including full roof replacement and interior repairs to multiple rooms. The insurance company denied the claim, arguing the plaintiffs reported the loss more than one year after it allegedly occurred. People's Trust raised fourteen affirmative defenses, including late notice, wear and tear, and policy exclusions. The jury found the plaintiffs did not prove windstorm damage occurred during the coverage period, ending the case without a damages award.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/homeowner-wins-miami-insurance-coverage-verdict)

[**Breach of Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-contract-jury-verdicts-settlements) [**Insurance Dispute**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute)

October 15, 2025

###### [Homeowner Wins Miami Insurance Coverage Verdict](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/homeowner-wins-miami-insurance-coverage-verdict)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/homeowner-wins-miami-insurance-coverage-verdict)

The case of Clotaire Borgella v. Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company (UPCIC) was a lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade County stemming from the insurer's denial of a property damage claim. The homeowner, Mr. Borgella, claimed his property sustained a direct physical loss during the policy period of November 2019 to November 2020. UPCIC denied the claim, asserting multiple Affirmative Defenses, primarily arguing that the damage was due to excluded causes like faulty workmanship or pre-existing conditions, and that Mr. Borgella failed to comply with his "Duties After Loss." The trial focused on expert testimony about the cause of the loss. The jury ultimately found that a direct physical loss had occurred. Although the jury agreed with the insurer that Mr. Borgella failed to substantially comply with the duty to show the cause of loss, they proceeded to assess damages. On November 7, 2024, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/state-farm-wins-water-damage-case-policy-exclusion-applies)

[**Breach of Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-contract-jury-verdicts-settlements) [**Insurance Dispute**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute)

October 10, 2025

###### [State Farm Wins Water Damage Case: Policy Exclusion Applies](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/state-farm-wins-water-damage-case-policy-exclusion-applies)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/state-farm-wins-water-damage-case-policy-exclusion-applies)

The case, Mildred and Edgardo Ventura v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company centered on a homeowner's claim for water and mold damage in Broward County, Florida. Plaintiffs Mildred and Edgardo Ventura argued State Farm breached their insurance contract by refusing to cover the loss reported in November 2021. State Farm admitted that damage occurred during the policy period, but its defense hinged on policy exclusions, specifically arguing the damage resulted from continuous or repeated seepage or leakage over time, a non-covered event. The jury in the 17th Judicial Circuit delivered a verdict on August 28, 2025. After the jury confirmed that the homeowners' property sustained damage during the policy period, they answered the critical second question: the jury found that the greater weight of the evidence did show the damage was excluded from coverage by the policy. This ruling validated State Farm’s denial, meaning the Venturas received no recovery for their claim.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/medmal-direct-wins-lawsuit-vs-broward-medical-center)

[**Medical Malpractice**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/medical-malpractice) [**Insurance Dispute**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute)

October 10, 2025

###### [Medmal Direct Wins Lawsuit vs. Broward Medical Center](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/medmal-direct-wins-lawsuit-vs-broward-medical-center)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/medmal-direct-wins-lawsuit-vs-broward-medical-center)

The lawsuit, Broward Outpatient Medical Center, LLC, et al. v. Medmal Direct Insurance Company (Case No. CACE-21-020771), was an insurance coverage dispute heard in Broward County, Florida. Plaintiffs BOMC and BISC claimed their insurer, Medmal Direct, wrongfully denied coverage and defense for underlying medical malpractice claims related to an insured physician, Merrill Reuter, M.D. The facilities asserted the policy covered them and that Medmal Direct's denial constituted a breach of contract. Medmal Direct, the Defendant, centered its defense on the Plaintiffs' failure to provide claim notice during the policy period, an essential policy requirement, and raised exclusions for fraud or fee disputes. The jury, returning its verdict on July 25, 2025, sided completely with the insurer. Specifically, the jury found that Medmal Direct did not receive a claim notice on behalf of the facilities and did not waive its policy requirement. Furthermore, the jury concluded that the Plaintiffs did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the insurer made a factual representation that created a basis for equitable estoppel.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/miami-jury-awards-84k-in-home-insurance-dispute)

[**Property damage**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/property-damage) [**Insurance Dispute**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute)

September 12, 2025

###### [Miami Jury Awards $84K in Home Insurance Dispute](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/miami-jury-awards-84k-in-home-insurance-dispute)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/miami-jury-awards-84k-in-home-insurance-dispute)

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/miami-jury-backs-citizens-in-hurricane-ian-claim)

[**Breach of Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-contract-jury-verdicts-settlements) [**Insurance Dispute**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute)

August 29, 2025

###### [Miami Jury Backs Citizens in Hurricane Ian Claim](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/miami-jury-backs-citizens-in-hurricane-ian-claim)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/miami-jury-backs-citizens-in-hurricane-ian-claim)

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/jury-sides-with-tower-hill-in-property-damage-lawsuit)

[**Insurance Dispute**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute)

July 22, 2025

###### [Jury Sides with Tower Hill in Property Damage Lawsuit](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/jury-sides-with-tower-hill-in-property-damage-lawsuit)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/jury-sides-with-tower-hill-in-property-damage-lawsuit)

A Florida jury found Tower Hill Prime Insurance Company not liable in a property damage dispute involving blasting vibrations. Homeowners Ileana Fernandez Adel and Khaled Adel alleged their insurer wrongfully denied coverage under an “all-risk” policy. The jury sided with the insurer, ruling that the damage was excluded under policy terms.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/citizens-insurance-cleared-in-30k-roof-damage-lawsuit)

[**Insurance Dispute**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute)

July 7, 2025

###### [Citizens Insurance Cleared in $30K Roof Damage Lawsuit](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/citizens-insurance-cleared-in-30k-roof-damage-lawsuit)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-dispute/jury-verdict/citizens-insurance-cleared-in-30k-roof-damage-lawsuit)

In a dispute over property damage allegedly caused by Tropical Storm Eta, homeowner Edgar Moscoso sued Citizens Property Insurance Corporation for breach of contract. He claimed the insurer failed to pay for storm-related repairs to his Miami home. After testimony from both parties and inspections of the property, a jury found no storm-created damage and ruled in favor of the insurer, concluding that the losses fell outside policy coverage.

1

2

3