In a legal battle between Citizens Property Insurance Corporation and Mayra Avila, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's ruling in favor of Avila. The decision, issued on February 26, 2025, reaffirmed that jury verdicts should stand if supported by substantial evidence, rejecting Citizens’ appeal.
The case arose from a property damage dispute in which Mayra Avila, a Florida homeowner, filed a claim with Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, the state-backed insurer of last resort. Avila alleged that her property had sustained significant damage covered under her policy, but Citizens either denied or undervalued her claim.
As the case progressed to trial, Avila successfully argued that Citizens had failed to uphold its obligations under the insurance policy. The jury ultimately ruled in her favor, awarding her damages to cover the necessary repairs.
Following the trial, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation sought to overturn the jury’s verdict, arguing that the evidence presented did not warrant the decision. The insurer contended that a directed verdict - where a judge rules in favor of one party without allowing the jury to deliberate - should have been issued in its favor due to a lack of sufficient evidence supporting Avila’s claim.
However, the appellate court disagreed with Citizens' position. The court emphasized the legal standard that a directed verdict is appropriate only when "no view of the evidence, or inferences made therefrom, could support a verdict for the non-moving party." Since Avila provided substantial evidence to support her claim, the jury's decision was upheld.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal ruled against Citizens, affirming the jury's verdict. The court reinforced that appellate judges must defer to jury findings when there is competent and substantial evidence supporting the verdict. In doing so, the ruling underscored the importance of holding insurance companies accountable for honoring policyholder claims.
This decision represents a victory for homeowners seeking fair treatment from insurers, particularly from Citizens Property Insurance, which has frequently been involved in litigation over denied or underpaid claims. It sets a precedent emphasizing that insurers must provide sufficient justification when disputing claims rather than relying on procedural technicalities to avoid payment.
For Florida homeowners insured by Citizens, the ruling highlights the importance of thoroughly documenting damages and pursuing legal action if they believe their claims are unjustly denied. The case also reinforces the legal protections available to policyholders and serves as a warning to insurers that courts will uphold policyholder rights when claims are unfairly contested.
As Florida continues to face challenges with property insurance, including rising premiums and insurer insolvencies, the case serves as a significant reminder that insurance companies must act in good faith when handling claims. Policyholders should remain vigilant and informed about their rights when dealing with insurers.
