Orlando, FL
Litigation Lawyer at Orlando, FL
Practice Areas: Litigation, Insurance, Personal Injury
OUTCOME: Jury verdict for client.
The Harrises submitted a claim for water damage to their home when the toilet supply line broke. The insurance company adjusted the cost of repairs to be $44,849.32 and denied liability for any further ... payments. A jury awarded the Harrises $82,696.36.
OUTCOME: Judgment reversed on appeal in favor of client.
Mr. Haynes submitted a claim after wind and rain damaged her home. The insurance company rejected her claim and refused to pay insurance benefits until repairs were completed. The Appellate Court r ... uled that an insurance company is not allowed to withhold payment of replacement cost benefits until the policyholder actually incurs the costs of repairs. The fact that Mr. Haynes had neither incurred expenses to repair or replace the damaged roof, nor contracted to do so, did not entitle the insurance company to withhold replacement cost payments.
OUTCOME: Jury veridict for client.
The Walshes submitted an insurance claim for wind damage to their roof. The insurance company refused to pay the claim based upon the false belief that the cost to repair did not exceed the policy ded ... uctible. The jury found that the insurance company breached the insurance policy and awarded the Walshes $7,054.57.
OUTCOME: Seven figure settlement for client.
The client, Bill Heard, submitted a claim for coverage under a liability insurance policy after it was sued in a class action filed under FDUPTA. The insurance company was required to pay Bill Heard's ... defense costs, as well as the cost to settle the class action claims.
OUTCOME: Jury verdict for client affirmed.
The client, Hedaya Home Fashions, a knitting company, sustained water damage to several of its industrial machines. The insurance company denied coverage, and argued that Hedaya could not file a laws ... uit until it first submitted a sworn statement in proof of loss. The jury awarded Hedaya $400,000. The Appellate Court affirmed the jury verdict and held that Hedaya was not required to file a proof of loss statement as a condition precedent to coverage, where the insurance company failed to serve a demand for proof of loss, choosing instead to deny coverage.
OUTCOME: Decision affirmed on appeal in favor of client.
Two consolidated actions were filed when clients sustained fire damage to their apartments caused by a roofing contractor. The Court held that under New York law, the condominium owner and its prope ... rty manager can be vicariously liable for the conduct of the roofing contractor.
OUTCOME: Seven figure settlement for client.
The client, Montefiore Medical Center filed a claim for the costs of stabilizing and repairing faulty construction of the brick facade of an apartment building. The insurance company denied the claim ... arguing that Montefiore failed to give timely notice of the loss and that the “faulty ... construction” exclusion precluded coverage. Applying New York law, the Federal Court found triable issues of material fact as to the efficient proximate cause of the damage and the reasonableness of the notice provided by Montefiore.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
