Thursday, December 11, 2025 12:00 – 1:00 PM
Webinar Link to be sent before the webinar.
Hosted by D. Brian Moore II, CPCUand Nestor A. Marante , Esq.
1 hour of Florida CE Credit
Author: admin
-
Thursday Lunch and Learn Webinar – Ethical Excellence in Florida Property Claims
-
Universal v Suffrat
“Post-loss duties must be complied with”
In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Marie Suffrat, 3D23-2263 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), the Florida’s Third District Courts of Appeal (“Third DCA”) was faced with an appeal of a final judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Marie Suffrat (“Suffrat” or “Insured”) against Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”).
The case arose from a Hurricane Irma claim, where Suffrat reported the loss to Universal nearly three years later, on September 2, 2020 (date of loss was September 10, 2017). After a thorough claim investigation, the claim was denied, primarily due to Suffrat’s failure to promptly notify Universal of the loss. Thereafter, the Insured filed suit and Universal moved to dismiss for failure to provide the required pre-suit notice of intent as required by Statute 627.70152, which the trial court denied holding that the Statute did not apply retroactively.
At trial, Suffrat testified that multiple roof repairs related to Irma occurred prior to reporting the claim. During trial, each Party presented their own competing expert engineer. Insured’s engineer testified that the property was damaged by Irma, while the engineer for Universal testified that due to the passage of time and multiple repairs, it was difficult to determine the cause of the damage. Universal’s corporate representative also confirmed prejudice during trial. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Insured.
Due to the Third DCA’s ruling in Cantens, the Court held that the trial court erred in denying Universal’s motion to dismiss the Insured’s complaint for failure to comply with Statute 627.70152. Cantens v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 388 So. 3d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). As it relates to the verdict, the Third DCA held that it was improper for the trial court to strike Universal’s late notice defense since Florida law allows parties to plead multiple defenses in the alternative. Second, the Court found there was an abundance of evidence to support Universal’s late notice defense, including Suffrat reporting the claim almost three years after the fact and only after numerous roof repairs. The Third DCA then reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, including the Third DCA’s holding that the trial court erred in denying Universal’s motion to dismiss and that the verdict in favor of the Insured was legally improper.
We see that the Court affirmed an insurance policy’s post-loss duties that insureds must comply with. The Court’s ruling makes it clear that a party can plead multiple defenses in the alternative, and this Court’s decision can be used to beat an insured’s expert when that expert attempts to
rebut prejudice.AlaEldean Elmunaier, Esq.
-
Seven Wins (And An Assist) For Windward Risk Managers!
$63,102.25 and More to Come!
Fantastic results have been pouring in for Windward Risk Managers over an incredible run these last few weeks! We have also recovered fees totaling $63,102.25 on these cases. This figure will grow because of a counterclaim and a proposal for settlement.
Kimberly Salmon remains on a hot streak as she prevailed on three straight motions for summary judgment on cast iron pipe cases. In Pantina v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Company before Judge Amy Williams in Pinellas County, Florida Peninsula defeated David Barnhill’s Motion for Summary Judgment that coverage existed for a water back-up. In that case, the court agreed the water back-up exclusion applies. The order is here. The insured purchased back the coverage for water back up but only up to the $5,000.00 limitation. Florida Peninsula paid more than the $5,000.00 limitation when it handled the claim. Florida Peninsula’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the counterclaim Kimberly Salmon filed to recover the overpayment is set later this month.
In Benchmark Consulting, Inc. d/b/a Castle Roofing and Construction A/A/O Edgar Mustafaraj v. Edison, the Plaintiff agreed to pay Florida Peninsula Insurance Company Sixty-Thousand Dollars ($60,000.00) after losing a Motion for Summary Judgment Kimberly Salmon handled.
In Benchmark Consulting, Inc. d/b/a Castle Roofing & Construction, Inc., a/a/o Brett Bunge v Florida Peninsula, the Plaintiff dismissed the case after being sanctioned for discovery violations. Benchmark d/b/a Castle Roofing was ordered to pay $1,255.00 in discovery sanctions. That order is here. Rather than comply with the discovery order and produce the documents, the Plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit.
After those two experiences, Benchmark d/b/a Castle Roofing filed a voluntary dismissal in another case for a different client of the firm. We credit Florida Peninsula with an assist on that dismissal.
Meanwhile, this afternoon Joe Matera and David Salmon obtained a summary judgment on a Hurricane Irma loss before Judge Helene Daniel in Hillsborough County in Cintron v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Company. Florida Peninsula originally assigned a 2019 date of loss to the claim based on the insured’s first notice of loss and a recorded statement the following day. The public adjuster, however, insisted the roof leak was from Hurricane Irma in 2017. When the insureds filed their lawsuit, the plaintiff lawyer specifically alleged the loss occurred on September 10, 2017. In deposition, Mrs. Cintron testified the loss occurred in 2019. Mr. Cintron did not know when the loss happened and deferred to his wife. Armed with three separate statements from Mrs. Cintron that the loss occurred in 2019, we moved for summary judgment the loss did not occur in 2017 as alleged in the complaint. There will no longer be a November trial. A proposal for settlement is on file.
In another cast iron pipe case, Carper v. Florida Peninsula Ins. Co., Pinellas County Judge Andrews granted Kimberly Salmon’s Motion for Rehearing on a Motion for Summary Judgment and then granted her actual Motion for Summary Judgment on the eve of trial. The Order is being submitted to the court today and ends a claim where the court went back and forth on its rulings. Originally, Judge Ramsberger granted Florida Peninsula’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the water back up exclusion but left the bench before signing the order. Judge Andrews signed the order granting summary judgment on behalf of Judge Ramsberger. When the parties submitted competing final judgments, Judge Andrews was unable to sign either final judgment because he could not identify the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law because he was not at the original hearing. He ordered another hearing and found there were issues of fact and denied the motion without prejudice. Kimberly Salmon then filed a Motion for Rehearing because both lawyers stated on the record that were no issues of fact. The judge heard the Motion for Summary Judgment a third time and granted Florida Peninsula Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Kimberly Salmon’s third bite at the apple resulted in the win!
Florida Peninsula was also defending two lawsuits in Hillsborough County filed by Edison Gonzalez and Gabriela Valentin. One claim is for windstorm and the other claim is for a plumbing leak. During his first deposition, Mr. Gonzalez testified that he was told not to bring any documents to his deposition despite the notice including a document request. He was then asked not to disclose any attorney-client communications when responding to the question, “Besides your lawyer, did anyone instruct you not to produce records.” He replied, “No.” The deposition was suspended and we moved for sanctions, resulting in two orders totaling $832.25. One order is here and the other order is here. When we re-noticed his deposition in one of the cases, he failed to appear. We moved for sanctions, resulting in a payment of $1,015.00. That order is here. When the Plaintiff failed to appear for his next deposition in the windstorm case, the case was dismissed. That order is here. Mr. Gonzalez just failed to appear for his deposition in the plumbing leak case. You can expect another dismissal as the plaintiff lawyers are withdrawing.
Congratulations to Windward Risk Managers on a great string of victories! “WINDWARD WINS!”