Case Background
Judy Dorcelus and Myrtha Ambroise-Dorcelus filed a lawsuit against Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, on January 5, 2021. The case carried the number 2021-000115-CA-01.
The dispute centered on a homeowner's insurance policy, Policy No. 1501-1701-1721, that Universal issued to the Plaintiffs for their property at 120 NE 131st Street, North Miami, Florida 33161. The policy period ran from March 19, 2019, to March 19, 2020. On October 25, 2019, while the policy remained in force, the Plaintiffs suffered a loss when water discharged accidentally from a plumbing system, causing sudden physical damage to the insured property. Universal assigned Claim Number FL19-0137939 to the loss.
Cause
The Plaintiffs alleged that Universal breached the insurance contract by failing to pay the full amount of insurance proceeds owed to them after the covered loss. According to the complaint, Universal acknowledged coverage for the actual cash value and replacement cost value of the loss but unilaterally determined the total amount owed. The Plaintiffs disagreed with that determination, and Universal refused to pay the full amount they believed was due.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $30,000, along with statutory interest under Florida Statute 627.70131(5)(a), Court costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under Florida Statutes 627.428 and/or 626.9373.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Judy Dorcelus and Myrtha Ambroise-Dorcelus
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Borshchukov Vyacheslav
Defendant(s): Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Omar J. Perez, Esq. | Shannon M. West | Daniel J Poterek
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiffs argued that Universal breached the insurance policy by refusing to pay the full amount of insurance proceeds due for the covered loss, even though Universal had acknowledged coverage for the loss. They maintained that all conditions precedent to filing the lawsuit had been met or waived, and that they were entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee under Florida law.
Defense
Universal denied the material allegations in the complaint and raised eleven affirmative defenses. Universal argued that the Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages because they delayed contracting for mitigation services until November 15, 2019, roughly three weeks after the October 25, 2019 loss date. Universal also argued that the Plaintiffs failed to give prompt notice of the loss, claiming the loss was reported more than three weeks after it occurred, which prejudiced Universal's ability to inspect the damage at the time it happened.
Universal further argued that the policy excluded damage caused by the insureds' neglect to use reasonable means to save and preserve the property after the loss. It claimed the Plaintiffs failed to provide requested documentation, including prior claim information, water usage records, and a recorded statement, and that this failure prejudiced its investigation. Universal also argued that the plaintiffs failed to keep an accurate record of repair expenses, citing policy provisions that also required an inventory of damaged personal property.
Additional defenses raised by Universal included that the Plaintiffs sought damages for areas of the home not caused by the loss, that any covered damages had already been paid in full, and that Universal was entitled to a set-off for amounts already paid and for the policy deductible. Universal also argued that recovery for matching costs or replacement of undamaged property was barred under the policy's direct physical loss requirement, that coverage could not be created or extended through waiver or estoppel, and that the doctrine of unclean hands barred recovery because the Plaintiffs had filed a prior claim in November 2019 involving damages to the same master bedroom at issue in this case. Finally, Universal argued that its liability was limited to the actual cost of completed repairs under the policy's loss settlement provision.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned its verdict on June 12, 2025. The jury found that the Plaintiffs proved by the greater weight of the evidence that the property sustained a direct physical loss during the policy period of March 19, 2019, to March 19, 2020.
The jury then rejected each of Universal's affirmative defenses in turn. The jury found that Universal did not prove that all of the damage to the property was caused by the Plaintiffs' neglect to use reasonable means to save and preserve the property. The jury also found that Universal did not prove that the Plaintiffs failed to substantially comply with their duty to protect the property from further damage.
The jury further found that Universal did not prove that the Plaintiffs failed to substantially comply with their duty to provide prompt notice of the loss. The jury also found that Universal did not prove that the Plaintiffs failed to substantially comply with their duty to provide requested documents. Finally, the jury found that Universal did not prove that the Plaintiffs failed to substantially comply with their duty to keep an accurate record of repairs and expenses.
Having rejected all of Universal's defenses, the jury determined damages. The jury found that the Plaintiffs suffered total damages of $75,000 caused by the direct physical loss during the policy period. Humberto Perez III served as foreperson and signed the verdict form.
Judgment
Following the verdict, Judge Migna Sanchez-Llorens, presiding over Section CA31, entered final judgment for the plaintiffs on July 2, 2025. The judgment awarded the Plaintiffs $55,828.63 on their breach of contract claim, an amount that reflected the jury's $75,000 verdict after subtracting a prior payment of $16,352.16, the policy deductible of $1,000, and recoverable depreciation of $1,819.21. The judgment was ordered to bear interest at a rate of 9.15% per year.
In addition to that amount, the Court awarded prejudgment interest of $23,513.54 under Florida Statute 627.70131, calculated from the date of first notice of loss, November 18, 2019, through the date of the verdict, June 12, 2025. The Court also reserved jurisdiction to determine the Plaintiffs' entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs under Florida Statutes 627.428, 626.9373, and/or 627.70152. The final judgment closed the case as to all parties.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
