Case Background
This legal dispute began when Herold and Jacqueline Hinds filed a lawsuit against their insurer, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, following a water damage incident at their Miramar home. The homeowners lived at 8960 S. Lake Miramar Circle, a property they protected through a standard insurance policy with Citizens. The relationship between the policyholders and the insurance giant soured after a dispute arose regarding the extent of coverage and the valuation of a specific insurance claim.
Cause
The trouble started on July 22, 2021. According to the legal filings, the Hinds family experienced an accidental discharge of water within their residence. The leak allegedly originated from either a plumbing system or a household appliance, which led to immediate physical damage to the interior of the home. This event took place during a policy period that ran from April 2021 through April 2022.
Injury
The primary "injury" in this civil context involved the physical deterioration of the Hinds' real estate and the financial strain caused by the insurer's refusal to pay what the Plaintiffs considered a fair settlement. The homeowners claimed that the water intrusion damaged specific areas of the house that required professional repair and replacement. They argued that the residence sustained a direct physical loss that the insurance company was contractually obligated to cover.
Damages Sought
When the Hinds family originally filed their complaint in early 2024, they took a bold stance regarding the value of their loss. They sought damages in excess of $50,000. Their request did not just cover the cost of drying out the home and fixing the pipes; they also demanded interest on the unpaid funds and the recovery of their legal fees and Court costs. They characterized their losses as contractual and compensatory, seeking to be "made whole" again under the terms of their "Replacement Cost" policy.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The litigation lasted exactly two years, moving from the initial filing in January 2024 to a jury verdict in January 2026. During this time, both sides engaged in a rigorous discovery process. The homeowners insisted they had played by the rules, while Citizens Property Insurance Corporation dug in its heels, claiming the homeowners had waited far too long to report the incident.
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: Herold Hinds | Jacqueline Hinds | Emeil Hinds | John Stat Bernstein | Robyn Elyse Lustgarten
· Counsel for Plaintiffs: John S. Bernstein | Robyn Elyse Lustgarten
Defendant: Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.
Counsel for Defendant: Jeffrey A. Rubinton | Kerri Harrell | Jonathan D Franklin
Expert for Defendant: William A. Yanko
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The trial centered on whether a "loss" actually occurred during the policy window and whether the homeowners had sabotaged the insurer's ability to investigate the claim.
Claims
The legal team for the Hinds family argued that Citizens had committed a straightforward breach of contract. They alleged that the insurance company failed to properly observe the damage and did not pay enough to cover the actual cost of repairs. Counsel argued that the homeowners had fulfilled every "condition precedent"—the legal chores a policyholder must do before suing including providing the required pre-suit notice of intent to litigate. They framed the case as a David-versus-Goliath struggle where a family had paid their premiums only to have the insurer walk away when the pipes burst.
Defense
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation fired back with several aggressive affirmative defenses. The company's lawyers argued that the homeowners had breached their "Duties After Loss". Specifically, they alleged that the Hinds family had waited 175 days after the leak to report the claim. By the time the insurance adjusters arrived, the homeowners had allegedly already started repairs and discarded the damaged materials. Citizens claimed this delay "prejudiced" them, meaning it made it impossible for them to determine if the leak was actually accidental or if the damage was as bad as the Plaintiffs claimed. They also argued that the repair estimates provided by the homeowners were excessive and included unnecessary work.
Jury Verdict
After listening to the evidence and the arguments from both legal teams, the jury reached a unanimous decision on January 9, 2026. The jurors had to navigate a specific "Verdict Form" that acted as a roadmap for their deliberations.
First, the jury addressed whether the property had actually suffered a direct physical loss during the policy period. They checked the "YES" box, confirming they believed the Hinds' home was damaged between April 2021 and April 2022.
Second, the jury tackled the most difficult part of the case: the 175-day delay in reporting. The law required the Plaintiffs to show that this delay did not actually hurt the insurance company's investigation. The jury sided with the homeowners again, finding that Citizens had not been prejudiced by the late notice.
Finally, the jury calculated the bill. While the homeowners had originally asked for more than $50,000 in their complaint, the jury settled on a specific figure based on the evidence presented at trial.
The jury awarded a total of $33,557.45 in damages to Herold and Jacqueline Hinds. The foreperson signed the document, bringing the two-year legal battle to a close and holding the state-backed insurer accountable for the plumbing disaster.
