- Court
- Florida Third District Court of Appeal
- Case Number
- 3D2024-2242
- Date Filed
- May 27, 2026
- Judge
- Scales, C.J.
- Disposition
- Affirmed
Background
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company appealed an amended final judgment entered after a jury found that Universal had underpaid its insured, Rubelina Corniel, for a covered loss. After applying set-off amounts of $2,500 for the policy deductible and $11,558.69 for Universal’s pre-suit loss payment, the final judgment awarded Corniel $17,941.31 in damages consistent with the jury’s verdict.
Universal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s damages award, arguing that testimony elicited on cross-examination of Corniel’s contractor undermined the verdict.
Holding
The Third DCA affirmed. The court applied de novo review of the trial court’s ruling on Universal’s motion for judgment in accordance with a prior motion for directed verdict, citing Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Barbanell, 100 So. 3d 152, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Under this standard, the court reviews the jury’s award to determine whether it is “supported by substantial competent evidence viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict.”
The court found that Corniel’s “unequivocal testimony” supported the jury’s verdict and declined Universal’s invitation to focus on cross-examination testimony from Corniel’s contractor. The court held that the factfinder was free to accept Corniel’s testimony, and the appellate court may not reweigh the evidence, citing Acosta v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 421 So. 3d 716, 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).
Key Takeaways
- A jury verdict on insurance damages will be upheld if supported by competent substantial evidence, even if conflicting testimony exists.
- An appellate court may not reweigh evidence or second-guess the jury’s credibility determinations in reviewing a JNOV motion.
- An insured’s own testimony about the extent of covered losses can constitute competent substantial evidence supporting a damages verdict.
- The standard of review for JNOV (judgment notwithstanding the verdict) is de novo, asking whether any competent substantial evidence supports the verdict.
Why It Matters
This decision reaffirms the high standard insurers must meet to overturn jury verdicts in first-party property insurance disputes. In the post-legislative-reform landscape of Florida property insurance, where many disputes still reach trial, this case confirms that an insured’s credible testimony alone can sustain a damages verdict even against conflicting contractor testimony. For insurance defense counsel, the message is clear: challenges to the sufficiency of evidence will fail where the insured provided unequivocal testimony supporting the claimed damages, regardless of what cross-examination revealed from other witnesses.