Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Caboverde, et. al., No. 4D22-1059 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jun. 28, 2023)

After the insureds’ ceiling collapsed by a few inches, the insurer’s field adjuster saw that the ceiling had cracks but had not fallen down. The insurer denied the claim.

At trial, the insureds called several witnesses, only one of which testified that he found “termite damage” and “termite infestation” to the wood trusses. The insurer moved for a directed verdict. However, the court deferred ruling on the motion for directed verdict.

The insurer renewed its motion for directed verdict and argued the same premises. Again, the court reserved ruling. Following a jury verdict for the insureds, the insurer moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that the insureds had not presented evidence to support the jury’s findings.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal ultimately reversed, ruling that the insurer was entitled to final judgment in accordance with its directed verdict motions and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the insureds failed to prove that the ceiling collapse was caused by a named peril within the policy.