Case Corner – Laura Acosta and Ruben Sola v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation

Jurisdiction: Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
Case No.: 4D2024-0926
Lower Tribunal Case No.: CACE 19-10994 (Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County)
Date: October 8, 2025
Lower Court: Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Hon. William Haury, Jr.
Panel: Harper, B.G., Associate Judge; Ciklin and Levine, JJ. (concur)
Counsel: Paul B. Feltman and Marcela Irimiea for Appellants; Shakiva Brown, Richard Barry, and Kristie Hatcher-Bolin for Appellee.

Case Summary

In a dispute over Hurricane Irma damage, the Fourth DCA reversed a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) entered in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The appellate court held that the trial court improperly reweighed evidence and substituted its own view for that of the jury. The jury had found that Hurricane Irma created an opening in the homeowners’ roof that allowed rainwater to enter, rejecting Citizens’ claim that the loss was due to wear and tear.

Because conflicting expert testimony and photographs provided competent, substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict, the appellate court reinstated the homeowners’ verdict and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the jury’s findings.

Factual Background

Laura Acosta and Ruben Sola filed a claim with Citizens in 2018, alleging that Hurricane Irma damaged their roof and interior. Citizens denied the claim, asserting that the loss stemmed from wear, tear, and deterioration, not a storm-created opening.

The homeowners filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the denial. The trial court initially denied Citizens’ summary judgment motion, correctly identifying that causation was a factual issue—whether Irma created an opening or the damage pre-existed due to age.

At trial:

• Citizens’ field adjuster admitted there was roof damage correlating with the interior leak but attributed it to grout deterioration rather than hurricane winds.
• The homeowners’ expert meteorologist relied on data from NOAA, the National Weather Service, and CoreLogic to determine that winds reached 95 mph at the property during Hurricane Irma. After reviewing drone photographs, thermal imaging, and two inspections, the expert concluded that Irma’s wind force created an opening in the roof membrane.

The jury sided with the homeowners, finding that the hurricane created an opening and Citizens failed to prove otherwise.

However, the trial court later granted Citizens’ JNOV motion, concluding the homeowners and their expert failed to pinpoint a “specific peril-created opening” and that photographs showed “no storm-related damage.”

Issues Presented

1. Did the homeowners present competent, substantial evidence that Hurricane Irma created a peril-caused opening leading to water intrusion?
2. Did the trial court improperly substitute its judgment for that of the jury when granting JNOV?

Holding

Yes. The appellate court found the trial judge overstepped by reweighing evidence and drawing his own conclusions about photographic significance. Conflicting expert testimony and exhibits presented enough evidence for reasonable jurors to conclude Hurricane Irma caused the damage.

Accordingly, the Fourth DCA reversed the JNOV and reinstated the jury’s verdict in favor of the homeowners.

Court’s Reasoning (Plain-English Analysis)

1) JNOV Standard

Under Florida law, a JNOV is proper only when no evidence or reasonable inference supports the non-movant’s position. Courts must view evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner and may not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility.
See Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Hernandez, 360 So. 3d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023); Hancock v. Schorr, 941 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Here, both sides offered competing interpretations:

• The homeowners’ expert used data and visual analysis to link Irma’s wind speeds with visible roof membrane failure.
• Citizens’ adjuster blamed age and wear.

This conflicting testimony created a factual dispute—the very type juries, not judges, must resolve.

2) Improper Judicial Reweighing

The trial court’s conclusion that “the roof photos show no storm damage” amounted to its own factual assessment, effectively replacing the jury’s evaluation of competing experts. Florida law forbids this. Judges may not act as “super-jurors.”

3) Misapplied Precedent

Citizens relied on Archer v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 313 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). But Archer dealt with summary judgment, not a post-trial JNOV. In Archer, there was no expert evidence at all linking the damage to a peril. Here, there was extensive expert testimony and photographic proof—sufficient to support the jury’s decision.

Why This Case Matters

• Reaffirms the sanctity of jury verdicts: Judges may not substitute their personal interpretation of photos or expert credibility once a jury has spoken.
• Protects homeowners’ rights: Conflicting expert opinions should be resolved by juries, not nullified post-trial.
• Clarifies distinction between summary judgment and JNOV: The evidentiary burden is far higher after a full trial.
• Highlights hurricane claim standards: For coverage, homeowners must show a peril-created opening that allowed water in—but they need not pinpoint the exact broken tile or shingle if credible expert and circumstantial evidence support causation.

Practical Implications for Florida Homeowners

1. Document thoroughly. Drone photos, thermal scans, and expert weather data can make or break a hurricane claim.
2. Don’t give up after a denial. Insurers may cite “wear and tear” even when wind clearly contributed.
3. Understand the claims process. For guidance, see:
   • What Happens When Filing a Homeowners Insurance Claim
   • Ways Insurance Companies Try to Avoid Paying
4. Know your rights in court. Florida juries can—and often do—side with policyholders when competent evidence supports storm causation.

Key Legal Precedents Cited

• Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Hernandez, 360 So. 3d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
• Hancock v. Schorr, 941 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
• Vecta Contracting, Inc. v. Lynch, 444 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
• Kopel v. Kopel, 229 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 2017)
• Archer v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 313 So. 3d 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)

Bottom Line

The Fourth DCA’s decision in Acosta v. Citizens underscores a vital rule: jury verdicts stand when supported by competent evidence. Even when trial judges personally doubt an expert’s conclusions or photographs, they cannot overturn a verdict merely for preferring one side’s interpretation. In hurricane litigation—where storms, age, and weather all blur causation lines—this case strengthens the role of juries in resolving factual disputes.

Today’s Insight

“Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it.”

— Theodore Roosevelt

In Florida insurance law, justice means trusting juries to weigh the wind, the evidence, and the truth.