Attorneys for the Defendant:

DANIEL M. NOVIGROD
CHARLES S. THOMPSON

Plaintiff filed a claim stemming from a water supply line leak in the kitchen that allegedly caused damages throughout the home.

We focused the defense of this matter on the fact that the Insured filed suit prematurely (within 90 days); failed to provide a sworn proof of loss prior to filing suit; and that Plaintiff had made material false statements in claiming damage to areas that were not affected by the subject water leak.

During opening Mr. Novigrod expressed to the jury that Universal was not given enough time or information to properly adjust the claim and was therefore never provided with an earnest opportunity to either pay or deny the claim. This inability to properly assess the claim is known as prejudice. Mr. Novigrod argued the evidence would show that the Plaintiff performed mitigation services, as was her duty, but that the mitigation company had removed damaged property and spoiled the scene for Universal prior to its inspection. Furthermore, the Plaintiff could have aided in the investigation by providing the water mitigation photos which would have allowed Universal to view the property in its unaltered state. Mr. Novigrod then began by explaining the importance of the statutory waiting period provided by FS 627.70131 and the Policy language which tracks this 90 day allowance for the Insurer to investigate the claim. Mr. Novigrod explained to the jury that Universal was prejudiced by all these failures of the Plaintiff to comply with her post-loss obligations which her Attorneys, who represented her from the beginning, should have done.

Mr. Thompson conducted the cross examination of the Insured’s EMS company and its qualifications. Mr. Thompson then questioned the witness on his photos and whether he normally takes moisture meter measurements. Witness agreed that he would have taken photos of all his moisture readings. Counsel then questioned why none of the photos taken depicted moisture readings in the kitchen and witness could not answer simply saying they were taken and then opened the door to their potentially being photos that were never provided. Mr. Thompson was able to get the witness to admit that his employees turned the water back on which may have caused some of the damages that were being claimed.

On the second day of trial Plaintiff’s did not want to proceed with trial and accepted a settlement far below the global demands made a week prior to trial.

Result: Settled on day two of trial for a nominal amount.