A Florida appeals court reversed a jury's $335,000 award against Universal Property & Casualty on July 22, finding it unsupported by valuation evidence.
It started in late December 2019, when water and sewage backed up into a couple's home through several fixtures - the washing-machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub, and toilet. Universal inspected and pegged the covered water damage at a little more than $12,000 in replacement cost value. After depreciation and the deductible, it paid just over $7,000 in actual cash value.
The homeowners wanted more. They argued the cast-iron drainage system under the slab had failed from rust, corrosion, and breaks, and needed to be replaced. They sued in 2021. One of the two owners died before trial, and the other pressed on.
By the time trial began in September 2024, nearly five years after the loss, the case had narrowed to one question: access. The policy did not cover the cost to unclog, repair, or replace the pipes. But it did cover "the cost to tear out and repair parts of the home necessary to access plumbing that needed repair or replacement." So the jury had to decide whether the system needed replacing - and, if so, what the access work was worth.
The surviving homeowner testified that the problems never stopped. When the household showered, brown, gritty water backed up into the tub and had to be scooped out by hand. Dishes were washed in a bucket and dumped outside.
Then came the gap. The only dollar figures in evidence came from two Triad Restoration Services estimates: $79,680.22 in replacement cost value (RCV) and $50,219.97 in actual cash value (ACV). A signed repair contract with another firm was admitted too, but its dollar amounts were redacted. The jury came back with $335,000 in RCV or $305,000 in ACV - several times the only valuation on record.
Economic damages, the court said, cannot rest on "jury speculation or guesswork." No witness put a number on inflation, later price increases, or any separate slab-and-backfill work. The award ran more than fourfold the RCV estimate and more than sixfold the ACV estimate, with nothing to close the gap.
The court did not erase Universal's liability. It said the record supported a finding that the insurer owed additional covered benefits - just not the amount the jury chose. It reversed the trial judge's refusal to reduce the award or grant a new trial and sent the case back for damages only, with instructions to decide whether RCV or ACV is the right measure.
The decision is not final.
