Fourth District Court of Appeal Overturns Trial Court’s Ruling, Citing Lack of Evidence for Jury Award.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of Universal’s motion for remittitur. Universal argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion because no competent evidence supported the jury verdict, which substantially exceeded the amount of damages actually proven at trial.

This case was a breach of contract action based on a homeowner’s insurance claim for benefits with Universal. To prove their damages, the insureds called a plumbing expert, who described what work would be required for repair, and a general contractor expert, who testified that the cost of the work, as explained by the plumber, would be $96,150. The insureds argued in closing that the cost of covered damages would be $96,105. 

At trial, only a sworn proof of loss in the amount of $168,168.77 was admitted into evidence. However, no written estimate from the public adjuster was admitted into evidence, nor did the public adjuster testify. Mrs. Brilus testified the figure of $168,168.77 was “what the public adjuster requested” and “the public adjuster can ask for whatever he wants to.” No other evidence supporting or corroborating this larger figure was admitted into evidence. The jury determined the damage was a covered claim and the amount of loss was $165,668.77, after deducting the deductible. 

Universal filed a motion for remittitur, arguing the only competent evidence as to the cost of repairs was the general contractor’s testimony. The trial court denied the motion without comment. 

On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, using the criteria set forth in Fla. Stat. section 768.74(5)(2023), found the amount awarded was not supported by competent evidence. The court found that the only competent evidence was provided by the general contractor and the insureds relied on the contractor’s testimony, rather than the sworn proof of loss, when requesting a jury award. The Court of Appeal also noted that the proof of loss figure was supplied by a public adjuster who did not testify, that Mrs. Brilus testified the public adjuster’s figure might have been too high and that no evidence was adduced to support the proof of loss. 

Because no evidence supported the jury’s award, the Court of Appeal found the trial court abused its discretion in denying Universal’s motion and directed the court on remand to issue a remittitur of damages to $96,150. 

_{Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – March 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}