When a homeowner and an insurance company end up in front of a jury, the jury decides not only who wins but how much money is owed. That number is supposed to come from the evidence presented at trial — not from guesswork.
This matters to policyholders and insurers alike. A verdict can feel like the end of the story, but Florida law lets a trial court take a second look at the size of a damages award and, in some situations, reduce it or order a new trial on the amount.
That is exactly what happened in Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Karmo, a decision from Florida’s First District Court of Appeal. The court looked at a jury verdict that was several times larger than the only dollar-figure evidence in the record and explained what has to support a damages number.
Key Takeaway
A jury may find that an insurer owes more benefits, but the dollar amount it awards still has to be tied to actual valuation evidence in the record. A verdict that far exceeds the only cost estimates presented cannot stand.
What happened in this case?
In late December 2019, water and sewage backed up into a family’s home through several fixtures, including the washing-machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub, and toilet. The insurer inspected the property and paid for the water damage it found, valuing that covered damage at a little more than $12,000 before depreciation and the deductible.
The homeowner sought more. She maintained that the cast-iron drainage system beneath the slab had failed and needed to be replaced. The policy did not cover the cost to fix the pipes themselves, but it did cover the cost to tear out and repair parts of the home needed to reach plumbing that required repair or replacement. That left the jury to decide whether the drainage system needed replacing, and if so, what the access work was worth.
What evidence did the jury have on the dollar amount?
On the amount of the loss, the homeowner introduced two estimates from a restoration company. Those estimates valued the claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value, and included work to reach the drain-line system, restore affected parts of the home, and repair documented water damage.
A signed contract with a plumbing company was also admitted, but the version shown to the jury had the dollar amounts and narrative redacted. It was offered to show that the homeowner had entered a repair agreement, not to prove the cost of the work.
The jury found for the homeowner and awarded $335,000 in replacement cost value, or $305,000 in actual cash value — far more than the estimates in evidence.
Why did the court reverse the award?
The appeals court explained that economic damages must rest on evidence giving a reasonable basis to determine a definite amount. A jury may draw reasonable inferences, but it may not supply a damages figure through speculation or guesswork.
Here, the only valuation evidence was the restoration estimates. Nothing in the record explained how the cost could have grown to more than four times the estimated replacement cost or more than six times the estimated actual cash value.
- Arguments about inflation and later price increases failed because no witness quantified any increase in labor, materials, fuel, or construction costs, and the contract’s dollar figures were redacted.
- Evidence that sewage escaped into the backfill beneath the slab showed the loss was serious, but no testimony or exhibit assigned a separate cost to additional slab or backfill work.
- A suggestion that a later inspection caused more damage failed because no witness placed a value on any such damage.
Respecting the jury — and reviewing the number
Florida law treats a jury’s reasonable verdict as fundamental and says courts should disturb it only with caution. A trial court cannot cut an award just because it would have awarded less. But once the amount is properly challenged, the court must give it close scrutiny and decide whether it reasonably relates to the damages proved and could be reached logically from the evidence.
What did the court order to happen next?
The court reversed the orders denying the insurer’s motion for remittitur and motion for a new trial as to damages, and sent the case back for further proceedings limited to the amount of damages. It found the trial court abused its discretion because the verdict did not bear a reasonable relation to the damages proved and could not be logically derived from the evidence.
On remand, the court directed the trial judge to determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the proper measure under the policy, and to order a reduced amount consistent with that determination and the evidence.
Why does this matter to homeowners and insurers?
This decision illustrates a general principle: proving that an insurer owes something more is different from proving how much. A jury’s finding on liability does not automatically justify any dollar figure it chooses.
For anyone following an insurance dispute, the case shows why the amount claimed generally needs to be backed by estimates, testimony, or exhibits that connect the requested figure to actual costs. Under section 768.74, Florida Statutes, the size of an award can be tested against whether it reasonably relates to the damages proved and can be reached logically by reasonable people.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information only, is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not predict or guarantee any result. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before deciding, ask for free written information about the lawyer’s qualifications and experience.