A Florida court has reversed a jury's award of $335,000 in a homeowners insurance case involving water and sewage damage. The ruling impacts Pamela and Armah Karmo, who had sued Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company after their home was damaged in 2019. The court found that the jury's award was not supported by sufficient evidence, leading to further proceedings to determine appropriate damages.
The case, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Pamela Karmo and Armah Karmo, was filed under docket number 1D2024-3259. The Karmos experienced significant water and sewage backup in their home in late December 2019, affecting multiple fixtures. Universal Property initially paid for some of the damage but denied additional claims related to the plumbing system. This disagreement led to the lawsuit filed in 2021.
In the lawsuit, the Karmos argued that the cast-iron drainage system beneath their home needed replacement due to rust and deterioration. Universal Property had inspected the property and estimated the damage at just over $12,000, but the Karmos believed that further work was necessary to access and repair the plumbing system. After a lengthy trial that began in September 2024, the jury ultimately sided with the Karmos, awarding them $335,000 in replacement cost value (RCV) or $305,000 in actual cash value (ACV).
However, the court found that the amounts awarded were not supported by competent valuation evidence. The jury's decision was based on the testimony of a plumber and estimates from Triad Restoration Services, which valued the loss at significantly lower amounts. The court noted that the only evidence presented for damages was the Triad estimates, which indicated a loss of approximately $79,680.22 in RCV and $50,219.97 in ACV.
During the trial, the jury had questions about how to fill out the verdict form and whether the amounts should come from the Triad estimates. The trial court instructed the jury to base their award on the evidence presented. Ultimately, the jury awarded amounts that were several times higher than the evidence supported.
The court ruled, “The verdict was several times higher than the only admitted valuation evidence, so it does not bear a reasonable relation to the damages proved.” The judges on the panel, including Ray, Winokur, and Treadwell, expressed that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying Universal's post-trial motions for remittitur and a new trial.
The ruling means that the Karmos will have to return to court to determine the appropriate amount of damages based on the evidence. The trial court must now decide whether RCV or ACV is the proper measure of damages under the insurance policy and adjust the award accordingly. This ruling emphasizes the importance of having solid evidence to support damage claims in insurance disputes.
Moving forward, this decision could have implications for other homeowners facing similar insurance disputes. It highlights the need for clear and competent valuation evidence when seeking damages in court. The outcome of this case may influence how future claims are evaluated and the standards for evidence in insurance-related lawsuits.
As for what’s next, the case has been remanded for further proceedings, meaning that it can be revisited in the lower court. Details about whether the Karmos will appeal the decision or if there are related cases pending were not available in the court filing.