Case Background
Yamirka Castro Almora and Armando Quintans Castro were residents of Miami-Dade County, Florida. They had purchased a homeowners insurance policy from People’s Trust Insurance Company. The policy remained in effect on November 9, 2020, when Tropical Storm Eta impacted their property in Hialeah, Florida. The insurer assigned claim number CFL20570196 to the reported loss. However, months later, the insurance company denied coverage, prompting the insureds to seek legal relief.
Cause
Tropical Storm Eta caused damage to the insured property while the insurance policy was still active. The plaintiffs notified the insurer and initiated a claim. Despite clear storm-related damage, the insurer denied coverage on February 23, 2021. The plaintiffs believed the policy terms clearly covered such events. They claimed the insurer ignored visible damage and refused to acknowledge liability. The dispute arose from the insurer’s failure to honor its contractual obligations despite the insureds’ compliance with all policy requirements.
Injury
The plaintiffs had followed all post-loss procedures as required under the policy. They received no insurance proceeds. The denial left them with unrepaired property damage. They continued to experience hardship due to the insurer’s refusal to cover the loss. The breach of contract disrupted their ability to restore their home. They also had to retain legal counsel to protect their rights, adding to their burden.
Damages
The plaintiffs sought financial compensation exceeding $30,000. They requested a declaratory judgment confirming coverage for the loss. They also claimed interest, court costs, and attorney’s fees. The damages stemmed from the insurer’s breach of contract and the emotional and financial strain of prolonged property damage. Their legal claim aimed to enforce coverage under Florida law and hold the insurer accountable.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: Yamirka Castro Almora | Armando Quintans Castro
Counsel for Plaintiffs: David Fernando Garcia | Ariel R. Peralta
Expert Witness for Plaintiffs: George Quintero | Christopher C. Thompson | Carlos Garcia
Defendant: People’s Trust Insurance Company
Counsel for Defendant: Tyler E. Sanchez | Michelle Rodriguez | George A. Hooker | Tiffany Danielle Sanchez | Jake Roth
Expert Witness for Defendant: Joe Hernandez | Al Brizuela
Claims
Count I – Breach of Contract
The plaintiffs, Yamirka Castro Almora and Armando Quintans Castro, claimed that they had a valid homeowners insurance policy with People’s Trust Insurance Company. They had paid all required premiums and complied with the terms of the policy. After their property sustained damage due to Tropical Storm Eta, the insurer failed to acknowledge coverage, did not confirm any forthcoming payment, and made no disbursement of insurance proceeds. This, they argued, constituted a breach of contract. The plaintiffs sought compensation for damages resulting from the breach, along with interest, court costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees under Florida Statutes §§ 627.428 and/or 626.9373.
Count II – Declaratory Judgment
The plaintiffs also requested the Court to issue a declaratory judgment confirming that the policy covered the loss. They stated that a real and substantial dispute existed between them and the insurer regarding the scope of coverage. They asserted that the court’s declaration would resolve this active legal controversy and clarify the parties’ rights. Along with the declaratory relief, the plaintiffs asked for costs and attorney’s fees under § 86.081, Florida Statutes.
Defense
People’s Trust Insurance Company denied all material allegations of coverage liability in the plaintiffs’ complaint. It admitted the existence of the policy and that a claim was submitted, but denied that the loss was covered under the policy terms. The company also admitted that it had denied the plaintiffs’ claim on February 23, 2021, but rejected the assertion that its denial was wrongful. It demanded strict proof of all contested claims and denied any breach of contract or liability for damages. PTI filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment count, arguing that it failed to state a proper cause of action.
In addition, the company raised several affirmative defenses focused on policy exclusions and the condition of the property. First, PTI claimed that no coverage existed for the roof claim because the policy did not insure against water damage, and the cause of the loss was not among the listed perils. The field adjuster found no evidence of wind or hail damage, only preexisting interior damage. Second, PTI cited the policy’s exclusion for existing damage, asserting that the observed damages predated the policy’s inception and were not covered. Based on these defenses, PTI sought judgment in its favor, taxable costs, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Jury Verdict
On January 30, 2025, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, Yamirka Castro Almora and Armando Quintana Castro. After considering all evidence and arguments, the jury found that the plaintiffs proved by the greater weight of the evidence that the direct force of wind damaged their property during the policy period. As a result, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $40,000.00 in damages.