--- 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/HEROLD_HINDS.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/hinds-v-citizens-33k-verdict-in-water-damage-dispute) [**Breach of Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-contract-jury-verdicts-settlements) [**Insurance Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law) February 26, 2026 ###### [Hinds v. Citizens: $33K Verdict in Water Damage Dispute](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/hinds-v-citizens-33k-verdict-in-water-damage-dispute) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/hinds-v-citizens-33k-verdict-in-water-damage-dispute) In Herold Hinds and Jacqueline Hinds v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, a Florida jury held the state-backed insurer liable for a plumbing failure at a Miramar residence. Despite the homeowners reporting the accidental water discharge nearly six months after the event, the jury determined that the delay did not prejudice the company's investigation. The verdict, delivered in January 2026, awarded the plaintiffs $33,557.45 in total damages, overcoming the insurer's defense that the repair estimates were excessive and the evidence was discarded prematurely. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/THE_PUBLIC_S_ADJUSTER.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/ex-adjuster-wins-big-after-firm-withholds-commissions) [**Insurance Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law) [**Professional Liability **](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/professional-liability-) February 25, 2026 ###### [Ex-Adjuster Wins Big After Firm Withholds Commissions](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/ex-adjuster-wins-big-after-firm-withholds-commissions) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/ex-adjuster-wins-big-after-firm-withholds-commissions) What started as a commission dispute between a Connecticut public adjusting firm and its former adjuster ended with a Jury delivering a sweeping verdict in that adjuster's favor in January 2026. Juliana R. Castro claimed The Public's Adjuster, LLC owed her earned commissions and then spent months trying to destroy her career after letting her go. The firm, which had its own grievances — including allegations that Castro deleted its Facebook account and poached its clients — left the Courtroom with just $10. The verdict drew a sharp line between a company's right to protect its business and the obligations it owes the people who built it. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Hilario.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/allstate-settlement-california-overcharge-class-action) [**Consumer protection**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/consumer-protection) [**Insurance Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law) February 5, 2026 ###### [Allstate Settlement: California Overcharge Class Action](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/allstate-settlement-california-overcharge-class-action) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/allstate-settlement-california-overcharge-class-action) Since at least January 2019, Allstate has been overcharging California policyholders by inflating the square footage of their homes in premium calculations. Specifically, the company allegedly included built-in garages in the 'Total Finished Living Area'—space typically meant for human occupancy—and then added it again to reach the 'Total Living Area'. This 'double-counting' method led to thousands of policyholders paying higher premiums than required by their actual home size. For the lead plaintiff, this resulted in her 1,154 square foot home being billed as 1,438 square feet. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Carlex_Glass_America.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/144m-jury-verdict-for-property-damage) [**Breach of Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-contract-jury-verdicts-settlements) [**Insurance Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law) February 4, 2026 ###### [$14.4M Jury Verdict for Property Damage](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/144m-jury-verdict-for-property-damage) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/144m-jury-verdict-for-property-damage) In a significant first-party insurance dispute, Carlex Glass America, LLC secured a $14.4 million jury verdict against Sompo America Insurance Company following a trial in the Middle District of Tennessee. The case stemmed from a tornado that struck the area surrounding a Carlex manufacturing facility, causing extensive damage to specialized float line equipment. While Carlex operated under a "Comprehensive All Risk" policy, Sompo denied full compensation, leading to claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief. The jury deliberated on whether Sompo had failed its obligations regarding both physical property damage and "time element" losses. Ultimately, the jurors found Sompo liable for the equipment damage but ruled in favor of the insurer regarding the business interruption claims, as Carlex did not sufficiently prove those specific financial losses were caused by the covered peril. The final judgment, entered on January 30, 2026, awarded Carlex the full $14.4 million for its property damage claims. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Eddy_M_Villasante1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/jury-rejects-citizens-insurance-defense-in-79k-storm-claim) [**Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/contract) [**Insurance Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law) January 27, 2026 ###### [Jury Rejects Citizens Insurance Defense in $79K Storm Claim](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/jury-rejects-citizens-insurance-defense-in-79k-storm-claim) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/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/Barbara_Corsale1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/barbara-corsale-llc-v-universal-property-casualty-verdict-) [**Breach of Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-contract-jury-verdicts-settlements) [**Insurance Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law) January 13, 2026 ###### [Barbara Corsale LLC v. Universal Property & Casualty Verdict](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/barbara-corsale-llc-v-universal-property-casualty-verdict-) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/barbara-corsale-llc-v-universal-property-casualty-verdict-) A Broward County jury ruled in favor of Barbara Corsale LLC in a breach of contract lawsuit against Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The dispute arose from a June 2022 water damage incident at a Deerfield Beach condominium. While the insurer argued that the damage resulted from long-term seepage or faulty maintenance—both of which were excluded under the policy—the jury rejected these defenses. The verdict confirmed that the loss was a direct, covered event and that the homeowner had fully complied with all post-loss obligations. The Court ordered the insurer to pay the actual cash value of the damages, reinforcing homeowner protections against wrongful claim denials based on unsubstantiated policy exclusions. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Frank_Savalli.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/savalli-v-peoples-trust-florida-bad-faith-jury-verdict) [**Consumer protection**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/consumer-protection) [**Insurance Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law) January 12, 2026 ###### [Savalli v. People’s Trust: Florida Bad Faith Jury Verdict](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/savalli-v-peoples-trust-florida-bad-faith-jury-verdict) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/savalli-v-peoples-trust-florida-bad-faith-jury-verdict) Following a 2017 plumbing failure in Coral Springs, Frank and Barbara Savalli entered an eight-year legal battle with People’s Trust Insurance Company. The conflict centered on the insurer’s "Option to Repair" clause, which the homeowners alleged was used as a tactic to "low-ball" restoration costs. In December 2025, a Broward County jury reached a unanimous verdict, finding that People’s Trust acted in bad faith, made purposeful misrepresentations, and failed to uphold its duty to restore the property to its pre-loss condition. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Marie_Henriquez1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/homeowners-win-hurricane-ian-suit-against-citizens) [**Breach of Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-contract-jury-verdicts-settlements) [**Insurance Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law) December 24, 2025 ###### [Homeowners Win Hurricane Ian Suit Against Citizens](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/homeowners-win-hurricane-ian-suit-against-citizens) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/homeowners-win-hurricane-ian-suit-against-citizens) In the case of Marie Henriquez and Alfonso Martinez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, the homeowners filed a breach of contract lawsuit following the denial of their insurance claim for damages sustained during Hurricane Ian. The insurer denied coverage, asserting that the damage to the property was not caused by the hurricane but was instead the result of "wear and tear, marring, chipping, scratches, dents, and/or deterioration". Following a trial in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court of Broward County, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the homeowners on key liability issues. The jurors determined that the plaintiffs suffered a direct physical loss during the policy period and explicitly rejected the defense's argument that the roof damage was caused by wear, tear, or deterioration. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/YILIANA_PENA_wednes1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/yiliana-pena-wins-30k-insurance-dispute-verdict) [**Breach of Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-contract-jury-verdicts-settlements) [**Insurance Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law) November 26, 2025 ###### [Yiliana Pena Wins $30K Insurance Dispute Verdict](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/yiliana-pena-wins-30k-insurance-dispute-verdict) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/yiliana-pena-wins-30k-insurance-dispute-verdict) A Miami-Dade County jury issued a $30,077.87 award to homeowner Yiliana Pena after finding that Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company breached its contract by failing to pay her valid property-damage claim. The jury rejected the insurer’s defenses, ruling that Pena complied with all post-loss requirements, including document requests, inspection access, and the Sworn Proof of Loss. The verdict confirmed that Universal failed to meet its burden and was responsible for compensating Pena for the full covered loss to her Cutler Bay home. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/jury-finds-for-insurer-in-property-dispute) [**Breach of Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-contract-jury-verdicts-settlements) [**Insurance Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law) October 20, 2025 ###### [Jury Finds for Insurer in Property Dispute](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/jury-finds-for-insurer-in-property-dispute) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/insurance-law/jury-verdict/jury-finds-for-insurer-in-property-dispute) The lawsuit Alexander Kaller v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company concerned a policyholder's claim for water damage to his condominium unit. The plaintiff alleged the damage stemmed from an accidental discharge of water on or about October 18, 2020, an event he asserted the policy covered. The insurer, UPCIC, denied the claim, arguing the damage resulted from excluded causes like wear and tear or improper maintenance. After a trial focused on expert testimony, the Miami-Dade jury had to first determine if the property suffered a direct physical loss during the policy period. The jury answered this pivotal question with an emphatic "No," immediately halting the proceedings and foreclosing any further discussion of damages or policy exclusions. On November 7, 2024, the jury returned a verdict firmly in favor of the Defendant, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company. This ruling ended the case, confirming that Mr. Kaller had failed to prove a covered loss under the terms of his policy. 1 2