Preview
Filing # 179484177 E-Filed 08/11/2023 03:19:03 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 2016-014003-CA-01
SECTION: CA31
JUDGE: Migna Sanchez-Llorens
SANDRA BLANCO et al
Plaintiff(s)
vs.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
Defendant(s)
____________________________/
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT, ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Judgment in
Accordance with Motion for Directed Verdict, Entry of Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Motion for
New Trial. The Court having reviewed the Motion, Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition, relevant
case law, and having heard argument of counsel – James M. Mahaffey III, Esq. for Plaintiff and
Robert K. Guinn, Esq. for Defendant – and otherwise being duly advised in the premises, FINDS:
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The case involves a lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs, Sandra Blanco and Carlos Luis Blanco
(“Plaintiffs”), against Defendant, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens” or
“Defendant”), regarding a coverage dispute related to a claim for water damage caused by a
reported plumbing leak that occurred on November 16, 2015. Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit
against Citizens Property Insurance Corporation breach of contract after Defendant denied
coverage for the reported loss.
Case No: 2016-014003-CA-01 Page 1 of 7
The matter went to trial on March 14, 2022, and concluded on March 17, 2022, with the
jury returning a verdict in Plaintiffs’ favor.
MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT
During the trial, Citizens moved for directed verdict, asserting that there was no coverage
under the policy since the undisputed evidence introduced at trial, viewed in the light most
favorable to Plaintiffs, showed that the leak had occurred for some period of time, and was a
constant or repeated exposure to moisture over a period of months.
As the Third District Court of Appeals explained in Siegel v. Cross Senior Care, Inc., 239
So. 3d 738, 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), in affirming the trial court’s entry of judgment
notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendant because the plaintiff failed to meet his burden
of proof at trial on an essential element of his claim:
When deciding the appropriateness of a directed verdict or JNOV,
Florida trial and appellate courts use the test of whether the verdict is,
for JNOVs, or would be, for directed verdicts, supported by
competent evidence.”
Lindon v. Dalton Hotel Corp., 49 So. 3d 299, 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing Speedway
SuperAmerica, LLC v. Dupont, 933 So. 2d 75, 79 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)).
The reviewing court is required to evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party and abstain from reweighing any conflicting or ambiguous evidence presented.
Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. American Bridge Bahamas, Ltd., 193 So. 3d 902, 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
“But this general precept of deference to the finder of fact is limited by the rules of evidence, and
this court need not defer to factual findings that are not based on competent evidence.” Id. (quoting
A & A Elec. Servs., Inc. v. Jurado, 198 So. 3d 37, 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)).
Plaintiffs presented evidence, including the testimony of Plaintiff and the testimony of the
Case No: 2016-014003-CA-01 Page 2 of 7
adjuster, the plumber, and an engineer, sufficient to allow the Jury to understand that the subject
loss did not fall under an exclusion within the policy.
This Court cannot direct a verdict against Plaintiffs as there is evidence in the record, with
reasonable inferences therefrom, upon which the Jury could have found in favor of Plaintiffs. Yanks
v. Barnett, 563 So. 2d 776, 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 516 So. 2d 295
(Fla.1991); Medina v. 187th St. Apartments, Ltd., 405 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
The Court cannot disturb the Jury’s sound Verdict as Plaintiffs submitted evidence to the
Jury that the loss was sudden and accidental as asserted by Plaintiffs.
Defendant’s Motion for a Directed Verdict is DENIED.
MOTION TO ENTER A JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH CITIZENS’ MOTION IN LIMINE
Citizens’ Motion in Limine argue that Plaintiffs should be precluded from seeking any
damage above the actual cash value of the loss under Cover A for repairs actually done to the
property. Citizens’ further asserts that Plaintiffs were allowed to seek additional damages not
allowed by statute or covered by the policy. Defendant states that Plaintiffs did not introduce any
damages for repairs actually done to the property and, since Plaintiffs have sold the property,
Plaintiffs cannot do any repairs. Citizens argues that it is entitled to a judgment in its favor since
Plaintiffs did not introduce or prove it sustained any covered damage.
Plaintiffs claim that the transfer in ownership of Plaintiffs’ property did not extinguish
Plaintiffs’ right to recover on their claim that had fully matured prior to the sale of the home.
Edgewood Manor Apartment Homes, LLC v. RSUI Indem. Co., 733 F.3d 761, 765 (7th Cir. 2013).
It is undisputed that Plaintiffs and Defendant were party to the subject policy at the time that
Plaintiffs sustained the subject loss. Morgan v. American Sec. Ins. Co., 522 So.2d 454, 455 (Fla. 1st
Case No: 2016-014003-CA-01 Page 3 of 7
DCA 1988) (“The insured must have an insurable interest in the property at the time he takes out
the insurance and at the time of the loss.”).
The jury was appropriately instructed on damages and Plaintiffs satisfied their evidentiary
burden to establish their damages under the Policy by providing the jury with sufficient evidence to
reach its verdict. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Tio, 304 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
Plaintiffs satisfied their evidentiary burden at trial to establish a measure of both Actual
Cash Value and Replacement Cost Value, including testimony regarding applicable depreciation,
providing the jury with sufficient evidence to reach its conclusions.
Defendant’s Motion to Enter a Judgment for Citizens in Accordance with Citizens’ Motion
in Limine is DENIED.
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
The Court has wide discretion to grant a new trial. Lee v. Oceans Casino Cruises, Inc., 983
So. 2d 791, 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (stating “[T]he orders granting a new trial are within the trial
court’s broad discretionary authority.”). The Florida Supreme Court has long held that “a trial
court’s discretion to grant a new trial is ‘of such firmness that it [will] not be disturbed except on
clear showing of abuse’” of discretion. Sosa v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., 435 So. 2d 821,
825 (Fla. 1983) (citations and quotations omitted). Also, “the presumption [on review] is that [the
trial court] exercised that discretion properly.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110, 1111
(Fla. 1998) (citations and quotations omitted). This heightened deference stems directly from the
trial court’s superior vantage point in assessing events at trial. Id. Thus, “a heavy burden rests on
appellants who seek to overturn such a ruling.” Choy v. Faraldo, 120 So. 3d 92, 95 (Fla. 4th DCA
2013) (quoting State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Higgins, 788 So. 2d 992, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)).
Notably, “[t]he trial judge’s discretion permits the grant of a new trial [even when] it is not ‘clear,
Case No: 2016-014003-CA-01 Page 4 of 7
obvious, and indisputable that the jury was wrong.’” Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490,
497 (Fla. 1999).
The Court has a duty to grant a new trial only where “the jury has been influenced by
extraordinary considerations, misled by the force and credibility of the evidence, or
when the verdict fails to comport with the manifest weight of the evidence.” Pierce v.
Nicholson Supply Co., Inc., 676 So. 2d 70, 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
“A new trial should not be granted unless it is reasonably clear that substantial rights have
been violated to the extent that a fair trial was not had.” N. Dade Imp. Motors, Inc. v. Brundage
Motors, Inc., 221 So. 2d 170, 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); see also Lindsey v. Johnson, 415 So.
2d 778, 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “If an error has been preserved, the legal standard
the trial court uses in deciding a motion for new trial is whether the error is so
pervasive or prejudicial that the injured party is denied the right to a fair trial.”
Hasegawa v. Anderson, 742 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (citing Gregory v. Seaboard
System R.R., Inc., 484 So. 2d 35, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)).
The Court considered all of the other arguments raised by Defendant. The jury’s verdict
was supported by the overwhelming manifest weight evidence, there was no legal errors
committed, and even if there was, there is no reasonable possibility that any of the alleged errors
contributed to the verdict when considering the totality of the manifest weight of the evidence
against the Defendant. In sum, the arguments raised by Defendant as to purported evidentiary errors
in the trial are not supported by the record and, thus, do not entitle Defendant to a new trial.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel improper statements during closing does not rise to
the level of a fundamental error. LeRetilley v. Harris, 354 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
(holding that only improper arguments rising to the level of fundamental errors survive a failure to
preserve the Motion for New Trial).
Case No: 2016-014003-CA-01 Page 5 of 7
The Court’s Jury Instructions and Verdict Form were proper and appropriately instructed
the jury as to the issues in the trial of this matter. Jones v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 936
(Fla. 5th DCA 2018); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Tio, 304 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
After hearing argument from the parties at length regarding the Jury Instructions and
Verdict Form, the Court’s Jury Instructions were consistent with Florida law.
Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial is DENIED.
Accordingly, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
Defendant’s Motion to Enter a Judgment for Citizens in Accordance with Citizens’ Motion
in Limine is DENIED.
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment in Accordance with Directed Verdict is DENIED.
Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 11th day of August,
2023.
2016-014003-CA-01 08-11-2023 3:03 PM
Hon. Migna Sanchez-Llorens
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
Electronically Signed
Case No: 2016-014003-CA-01 Page 6 of 7
No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION
CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST JUDGMENT
Electronically Served:
Cindy Niad Hannah, info@agree2disagree.com
David Avellar Neblett, david@perryneblett.com
David Avellar Neblett, jmahaffey@perryneblett.com
David Avellar Neblett, terry@perryneblett.com
Francella Guido, francella.guido@csklegal.com
Francella Guido, karen.delgado@csklegal.com
Francella Guido, Miami.Property@csklegal.com
Haley Dison, haley.dison@csklegal.com
Haley Dison, vincenza.candela@csklegal.com
James Marcus Mahaffey III, jmahaffey@perryneblett.com
James Marcus Mahaffey III, david@perryneblett.com
James Marcus Mahaffey III, tlevy@perryneblett.com
Joseph Jesus Portuondo, jjp@portuondolaw.com
Olinda Deochand, odeochand@kpattorney.com
Olinda Deochand, FirstPartyEService@kpattorney.com
Perry & Neblett, service@perryneblett.com
Robert Guinn, Robert.Guinn@CSKLegal.com
Robert Guinn, christopher.brao@csklegal.com
Robert Guinn, Miami.Property@csklegal.com
Physically Served:
Case No: 2016-014003-CA-01 Page 7 of 7
Preview
Filing # 179484177 E-Filed 08/11/2023 03:19:03 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 2016-014003-CA-01 SECTION: CA31 JUDGE: Migna Sanchez-Llorens SANDRA BLANCO et al Plaintiff(s) vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION Defendant(s) ____________________________/ ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT, ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Judgment in Accordance with Motion for Directed Verdict, Entry of Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial. The Court having reviewed the Motion, Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition, relevant case law, and having heard argument of counsel – James M. Mahaffey III, Esq. for Plaintiff and Robert K. Guinn, Esq. for Defendant – and otherwise being duly advised in the premises, FINDS: PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The case involves a lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs, Sandra Blanco and Carlos Luis Blanco (“Plaintiffs”), against Defendant, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (“Citizens” or “Defendant”), regarding a coverage dispute related to a claim for water damage caused by a reported plumbing leak that occurred on November 16, 2015. Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit against Citizens Property Insurance Corporation breach of contract after Defendant denied coverage for the reported loss. Case No: 2016-014003-CA-01 Page 1 of 7 The matter went to trial on March 14, 2022, and concluded on March 17, 2022, with the jury returning a verdict in Plaintiffs’ favor. MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT During the trial, Citizens moved for directed verdict, asserting that there was no coverage under the policy since the undisputed evidence introduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, showed that the leak had occurred for some period of time, and was a constant or repeated exposure to moisture over a period of months. As the Third District Court of Appeals explained in Siegel v. Cross Senior Care, Inc., 239 So. 3d 738, 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), in affirming the trial court’s entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendant because the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof at trial on an essential element of his claim: When deciding the appropriateness of a directed verdict or JNOV, Florida trial and appellate courts use the test of whether the verdict is, for JNOVs, or would be, for directed verdicts, supported by competent evidence.” Lindon v. Dalton Hotel Corp., 49 So. 3d 299, 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v. Dupont, 933 So. 2d 75, 79 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)). The reviewing court is required to evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and abstain from reweighing any conflicting or ambiguous evidence presented. Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. American Bridge Bahamas, Ltd., 193 So. 3d 902, 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “But this general precept of deference to the finder of fact is limited by the rules of evidence, and this court need not defer to factual findings that are not based on competent evidence.” Id. (quoting A & A Elec. Servs., Inc. v. Jurado, 198 So. 3d 37, 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)). Plaintiffs presented evidence, including the testimony of Plaintiff and the testimony of the Case No: 2016-014003-CA-01 Page 2 of 7 adjuster, the plumber, and an engineer, sufficient to allow the Jury to understand that the subject loss did not fall under an exclusion within the policy. This Court cannot direct a verdict against Plaintiffs as there is evidence in the record, with reasonable inferences therefrom, upon which the Jury could have found in favor of Plaintiffs. Yanks v. Barnett, 563 So. 2d 776, 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 516 So. 2d 295 (Fla.1991); Medina v. 187th St. Apartments, Ltd., 405 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The Court cannot disturb the Jury’s sound Verdict as Plaintiffs submitted evidence to the Jury that the loss was sudden and accidental as asserted by Plaintiffs. Defendant’s Motion for a Directed Verdict is DENIED. MOTION TO ENTER A JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITIZENS’ MOTION IN LIMINE Citizens’ Motion in Limine argue that Plaintiffs should be precluded from seeking any damage above the actual cash value of the loss under Cover A for repairs actually done to the property. Citizens’ further asserts that Plaintiffs were allowed to seek additional damages not allowed by statute or covered by the policy. Defendant states that Plaintiffs did not introduce any damages for repairs actually done to the property and, since Plaintiffs have sold the property, Plaintiffs cannot do any repairs. Citizens argues that it is entitled to a judgment in its favor since Plaintiffs did not introduce or prove it sustained any covered damage. Plaintiffs claim that the transfer in ownership of Plaintiffs’ property did not extinguish Plaintiffs’ right to recover on their claim that had fully matured prior to the sale of the home. Edgewood Manor Apartment Homes, LLC v. RSUI Indem. Co., 733 F.3d 761, 765 (7th Cir. 2013). It is undisputed that Plaintiffs and Defendant were party to the subject policy at the time that Plaintiffs sustained the subject loss. Morgan v. American Sec. Ins. Co., 522 So.2d 454, 455 (Fla. 1st Case No: 2016-014003-CA-01 Page 3 of 7 DCA 1988) (“The insured must have an insurable interest in the property at the time he takes out the insurance and at the time of the loss.”). The jury was appropriately instructed on damages and Plaintiffs satisfied their evidentiary burden to establish their damages under the Policy by providing the jury with sufficient evidence to reach its verdict. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Tio, 304 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). Plaintiffs satisfied their evidentiary burden at trial to establish a measure of both Actual Cash Value and Replacement Cost Value, including testimony regarding applicable depreciation, providing the jury with sufficient evidence to reach its conclusions. Defendant’s Motion to Enter a Judgment for Citizens in Accordance with Citizens’ Motion in Limine is DENIED. MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL The Court has wide discretion to grant a new trial. Lee v. Oceans Casino Cruises, Inc., 983 So. 2d 791, 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (stating “[T]he orders granting a new trial are within the trial court’s broad discretionary authority.”). The Florida Supreme Court has long held that “a trial court’s discretion to grant a new trial is ‘of such firmness that it [will] not be disturbed except on clear showing of abuse’” of discretion. Sosa v. Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., 435 So. 2d 821, 825 (Fla. 1983) (citations and quotations omitted). Also, “the presumption [on review] is that [the trial court] exercised that discretion properly.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Manasse, 707 So. 2d 1110, 1111 (Fla. 1998) (citations and quotations omitted). This heightened deference stems directly from the trial court’s superior vantage point in assessing events at trial. Id. Thus, “a heavy burden rests on appellants who seek to overturn such a ruling.” Choy v. Faraldo, 120 So. 3d 92, 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Higgins, 788 So. 2d 992, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)). Notably, “[t]he trial judge’s discretion permits the grant of a new trial [even when] it is not ‘clear, Case No: 2016-014003-CA-01 Page 4 of 7 obvious, and indisputable that the jury was wrong.’” Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490, 497 (Fla. 1999). The Court has a duty to grant a new trial only where “the jury has been influenced by extraordinary considerations, misled by the force and credibility of the evidence, or when the verdict fails to comport with the manifest weight of the evidence.” Pierce v. Nicholson Supply Co., Inc., 676 So. 2d 70, 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). “A new trial should not be granted unless it is reasonably clear that substantial rights have been violated to the extent that a fair trial was not had.” N. Dade Imp. Motors, Inc. v. Brundage Motors, Inc., 221 So. 2d 170, 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); see also Lindsey v. Johnson, 415 So. 2d 778, 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “If an error has been preserved, the legal standard the trial court uses in deciding a motion for new trial is whether the error is so pervasive or prejudicial that the injured party is denied the right to a fair trial.” Hasegawa v. Anderson, 742 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (citing Gregory v. Seaboard System R.R., Inc., 484 So. 2d 35, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)). The Court considered all of the other arguments raised by Defendant. The jury’s verdict was supported by the overwhelming manifest weight evidence, there was no legal errors committed, and even if there was, there is no reasonable possibility that any of the alleged errors contributed to the verdict when considering the totality of the manifest weight of the evidence against the Defendant. In sum, the arguments raised by Defendant as to purported evidentiary errors in the trial are not supported by the record and, thus, do not entitle Defendant to a new trial. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel improper statements during closing does not rise to the level of a fundamental error. LeRetilley v. Harris, 354 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (holding that only improper arguments rising to the level of fundamental errors survive a failure to preserve the Motion for New Trial). Case No: 2016-014003-CA-01 Page 5 of 7 The Court’s Jury Instructions and Verdict Form were proper and appropriately instructed the jury as to the issues in the trial of this matter. Jones v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co., 235 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018); Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Tio, 304 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). After hearing argument from the parties at length regarding the Jury Instructions and Verdict Form, the Court’s Jury Instructions were consistent with Florida law. Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial is DENIED. Accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: Defendant’s Motion to Enter a Judgment for Citizens in Accordance with Citizens’ Motion in Limine is DENIED. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment in Accordance with Directed Verdict is DENIED. Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 11th day of August, 2023. 2016-014003-CA-01 08-11-2023 3:03 PM Hon. Migna Sanchez-Llorens CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE Electronically Signed Case No: 2016-014003-CA-01 Page 6 of 7 No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST JUDGMENT Electronically Served: Cindy Niad Hannah, info@agree2disagree.com David Avellar Neblett, david@perryneblett.com David Avellar Neblett, jmahaffey@perryneblett.com David Avellar Neblett, terry@perryneblett.com Francella Guido, francella.guido@csklegal.com Francella Guido, karen.delgado@csklegal.com Francella Guido, Miami.Property@csklegal.com Haley Dison, haley.dison@csklegal.com Haley Dison, vincenza.candela@csklegal.com James Marcus Mahaffey III, jmahaffey@perryneblett.com James Marcus Mahaffey III, david@perryneblett.com James Marcus Mahaffey III, tlevy@perryneblett.com Joseph Jesus Portuondo, jjp@portuondolaw.com Olinda Deochand, odeochand@kpattorney.com Olinda Deochand, FirstPartyEService@kpattorney.com Perry & Neblett, service@perryneblett.com Robert Guinn, Robert.Guinn@CSKLegal.com Robert Guinn, christopher.brao@csklegal.com Robert Guinn, Miami.Property@csklegal.com Physically Served: Case No: 2016-014003-CA-01 Page 7 of 7