Tampa Partner Paydon Broeder and Associate Gianna Morgado recently obtained a defense verdict for a major property insurance corporation.
The plaintiff alleged that their home sustained damage as a result of Tropical Storm Eta in November of 2020, allowing rainwater to enter. Our client denied the claim, finding that the roof had not been damaged in the storm but rather had preexisting failures, which allowed rain to enter. The plaintiff alleged the carrier’s investigation to be inadequate and conclusory.
At trial, the defendant successfully put the burden on the plaintiff to prove that the roof was damaged by wind, over the plaintiff’s objections. The plaintiff’s general contractor testified that the storm was the only plausible explanation to the damage, however the defendant’s engineer pointed to specific areas of the roof that had faulty construction and wear and tear. The jury was out for just over an hour before coming back with a full defense verdict.
A proposal for settlement was filed over 18 months ago, and in that time this case was set for trial three prior times, making the carrier’s entitlement to costs considerable.
Our team is available to discuss the topics written here and ready to provide additional information contained in this article. Contact us for more information.