Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Co., granting the insurer another opportunity to defend its denial of a home insurance claim.
The court found that the policyholder’s lawyer improperly influenced the jury by focusing on claims handling rather than whether the loss was covered or excluded under the policy.
The underlying dispute arose from a water damage claim filed on Dec. 10, 2020. Universal dispatched a field adjuster to inspect the home within days and, on Dec. 18, requested additional documentation, which the policyholder did not fully provide, according to the insurer.
Universal did not respond until Feb. 19, 2021, when it again sought many of the same documents. The policyholder’s adjuster followed up with Universal and later contacted its examiner regarding the claim.
The policyholder filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract but did not assert bad faith or other misconduct.
Universal argued the policyholder failed to submit all required documentation describing the loss. Before trial, Universal’s lawyers moved to exclude evidence or arguments related to bad faith or claims handling since no such claims were made, but the trial court did not rule on the motion.
During opening statements, the policyholder’s lawyer told jurors that Universal was “just flailing around” rather than genuinely waiting for documents.
Universal’s counsel objected, asserting the remark inappropriately addressed claims handling and bad faith, but the judge overruled the objection following a sidebar.
Similar objections during witness testimony were also overruled. When Universal moved for a mistrial, the court denied the request, stating that the discussion focused on the delay in responding, not the claims handling process itself.
The jury ultimately awarded the policyholder $47,006. It concluded Universal did not prove the policyholder failed to submit the requested documents and rejected the insurer’s assertion that the damage was caused by repeated seepage or leakage, which would have been excluded from coverage.
In its appeal, Universal cited the Fourth District’s decision in Citizens Property Insurance v. Mendoza, a similar water damage case where a plaintiff’s lawyer prejudiced jurors by accusing the insurer of violating “ethical responsibilities.”
In contrast, Judge Ed Artau dissented, arguing that Mendoza did not apply because the court there never determined whether the evidence was improperly admitted.
He also wrote that the evidence presented in the Universal case was relevant and its probative value outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice.
