Bernstein Chackman Liss

Partners, Steven Chackman and Michael Chackman, recently obtained a defense verdict in Broward County. The Plaintiff sued its insurance company alleging that the insurer breached the contract of insurance by failing to pay her for resulting damage to the downstairs of her home as a result of a leak from a tub in the upstairs bathroom.?The Plaintiff presented evidence that there was an unexpected sudden gush of water downstairs from hidden deterioration of the tub in the upstairs bathroom. At trial, Plaintiff argued that there was an accidental direct physical loss, and although there was long term deterioration, the claim was covered as resulting damage.?The case was tried before Judge William Haury, Jr. in Broward County Circuit Court, resulting in a defense verdict for the insurer.?The jury found that although there was an accidental direct physical loss,?a covered loss did not occur that was not directly related to the original excluded risk.?As a result, there was no covered resulting or ensuing loss.??

Partner, Steven Chackman, recently secured a defense verdict in a federal non-jury trial. Plaintiff filed suit against its insurance agent in federal court alleging that its insurance agent was negligent and breached a fiduciary duty, following the insurer’s denial of its fire claim for total loss of its yacht valued at $1,500,000.?The insurer denied coverage for the claim based upon the insured’s failure to advise it of the change in captain prior to the fire.?The insured sued the agent alleging that she failed to procure the necessary coverage, and failed to advise the insured of the changes in requirements for change in captains.???? ? Following a non-jury trial,?the?Court?found?that?the insurance agent was not liable for negligence because she provided the insured with the policies each year,?the insured actually?read?them and requested?changes, and?the insured was?ultimately aware?of?the?requirement?that a?full-time?captain?be employed and be?in control?of?the?vessel.?The insured had?no?explanation?as?to?why?a change in captain was not?requested prior?to?the?fire. The?Court found for the insurance agent on the claim for breach of fiduciary duty, finding that there?was?no?special?relationship.? ?

Partners, Steven Chackman and Michael Chackman recently obtained a defense verdict in Miami-Dade County. ? The case arose from a bathtub leak for which the carrier acknowledged coverage, although the damages did not exceed the Plaintiff’s insurance deductible of $2,500.00. At trial, the Plaintiff argued that the bathtub leak caused extensive damage throughout the subject property, and testified that he spent large amounts of money effectuating repairs. Moreover, Plaintiff’s expert argued that the damage spread to numerous portions of the subject property, which were not included within the carrier’s estimate. Notwithstanding, Steven and Michael, through extensive cross-examination, revealed inconsistencies in what the Plaintiff ultimately spent on repairs, and also highlighted irregularities in the testimony proffered by Plaintiff’s expert. ? Ultimately, after deliberation, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the Plaintiff’s damages did not exceed the insurance deductible.?

Partner, Richard Chackman, and Associate, Lisbetty Rozon, obtained final summary judgment, as well as fees and costs, on behalf of an insurance carrier in Miami-Dade County, Florida. ? The case arose from a late reported Hurricane Irma claim whereby the insured reported the claim on March 11, 2020, despite the date of loss being September 10, 2017. The claim was reported as roof damage, which included broken and cracked tiles, ultimately resulting in interior ceiling leaks. In his recorded statement, the Plaintiff admitted that he was aware of the potential damage from Hurricane Irma almost immediately after the storm, which prompted him to effectuate repairs to the subject property. Moreover, despite repeated requests for documentation from the carrier, the Plaintiff failed to provide the same, and the Plaintiff also failed to keep an accounting of his repair expenditures for work performed. In light of the foregoing, Ms. Rozon, who handled the hearing, argued that Citizens was prejudiced as a matter of law, as the Plaintiff failed to provide prompt notice and substantiate the loss in violation of the insurance policy. Of note, after the hearing, the carrier moved for fees and costs in light of an expired proposal for settlement, which was granted. Accordingly, Mr. Chackman and Ms. Rozon were able to secure attorney’s fees and taxable costs from the date of the proposal for settlement to Plaintiff.?

Partner, Jonathan Liss, recently obtained a complete defense verdict in an automobile negligence case in Miami-Dade County. The verdict was rendered after a?4-day jury trial. The case arose from a rear-end collision, which resulted in the Plaintiff, who was 47 years old, to undergo an extensive three level lumbar fusion surgery. Prior to trial, the Plaintiff succeeded on a motion for summary judgment as to the applicability of the permanency threshold defense, and therefore, Plaintiff was not required to prove a permanent injury to secure non-economic damages. At trial, the Plaintiff presented over $400,000.00 in medical bills. Notwithstanding, Jonathan presented evidence that the case arose from a low-speed collision, and that the Plaintiff’s injuries were degenerative and not causally related to the subject accident. Ultimately, despite the Defendants admitting fault, the jury returned a full defense verdict, finding that the Plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the subject accident.?

Partners, Steven Chackman and Brian Chackman recently obtained a full defense verdict in Miami-Dade County. The case arose from a first-party property Hurricane Dorian claim, which was ultimately denied by the carrier. The Plaintiffs claimed that Hurricane Dorian damaged their roof, which resulted in damage to the interior of their property. In furtherance of their claim, Plaintiffs submitted a global non-itemized estimate prepared by a general contractor that encompassed almost their entire property. At trial, Steven and Brian elicited testimony from Plaintiffs’ expert engineer indicating that the Plaintiffs’ roof sustained no damage to its underlayment, which undercut their interior water damage claim. Moreover, Steven and Brian presented evidence that the Plaintiffs’ damages were not only pre-existing from Hurricane Irma, but were also subject to a prior insurance claim. Finally, Steven and Brian presented evidence establishing that the jury would be unable to award damages, as the Plaintiffs submitted a global non-itemized estimate that rendered it impossible to differentiate between new and pre-existing damages/line items. After lengthy deliberations, the jury returned a complete defense verdict, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving that the alleged damage occurred during the policy period.