RODOLFO BAILETTI AND ANA L. SAEZ

v.

UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2024-1695 _____________________________

RODOLFO BAILETTI and ANA

L. SAEZ,

Appellants,

v.

UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

R. Todd Harris, Judge.

October 8, 2025

PER CURIAM.

Appellants challenge the final judgment entered for Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Co. that awarded Appellants nothing for their breach of contract claim. Appellants contend that the trial court denying their motion for directed verdict and then allowing the jury to determine whether Universal breached the contract was contrary to uncontroverted trial testimony that Universal failed to comply with its contractual duties. Our review of the record, including the trial transcript, shows that there was testimony to support the jury’s verdict that Universal did not breach the contract. Accordingly, we affirm.

At trial in 2024, testimony by Universal’s corporate representative and by both Appellants established that Appellants provided Universal no receipts or other documentation of expenses incurred for protection of the home, such as tarps for the roof and rented dehumidifiers. And it was undisputed that as of the date the lawsuit was filed, Universal had not received any documentation for expenses incurred by Appellants for repairs they, their family members, or any third parties made to the home. Universal’s corporate representative did not concede any breach of the insurance contract by the company. At trial, Appellants presented the estimate of engineer and general contractor Alfredo Brizuela for his evaluation of the damage to Appellants’ property. This estimate was based on Mr. Brizuela’s inspection of the property in March 2023, two years after Appellants filed their breach of contract action and more than two years after the hurricane. This estimate was not provided to Universal until the eve of trial. Mr. Brizuela did not calculate a total estimate but prepared a room-by-room evaluation. Universal presented its own construction expert, Jonathan Pruitt, to testify about his inspection of the property in April 2024 and his report of the actual cost value of Appellants’ loss from the hurricane four years earlier. Over the course of the four-day trial, Mr. Pruitt refined his estimate based on information he received during trial. He ultimately estimated the actual cost value at $31,637 but clarified that his value did not account for any

* Of course, as the prevailing party at trial, Universal does not challenge the denial of its motion for directed verdict on appeal.

But when—as here—no evidence can support a disagreement as to ACV, a factfinder cannot conclude which of the two amounts is correct. Just as the courts found in Salazar and Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Qureshi, 396 So. 3d 564, 566–67 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), we too conclude that when (1) an insured’s estimate and evidence provides only for RCV costs and (2) no evidence is presented to challenge the insurer’s ACV payout, no breach of contract occurs when the insurer fails to pay monies under the insured’s estimate. See Salazar, 388 So. 3d at 118 (“Here, the homeowner did not produce any evidence to establish her damages exceeded Citizens’

Homeowners Choice, 410 So. 3d at 111–12.

Here, Universal showed at trial that it paid Appellants based on the estimate for actual cash value submitted by Universal’s field adjuster. Appellants presented expert testimony at trial that the payment did not reflect the fully insured loss. But the estimates presented during trial were prepared years after the hurricane, years after the lawsuit was filed, and were provided to the insurer only on the eve of, and in Mr. Pruitt’s case, during, the trial. Appellants failed to show that as of June 2021, when they filed their breach of contract action, Universal had breached the insurance policy. Appellants never sought to amend their complaint to encompass any alleged breach occurring after June 2021. “Damages are assessed at the time of the breach rather than at the time of the trial.” Jeremy Stewart Constr. v. Matthews, 324 So. 3d 41, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (citations omitted). We find no error in the trial court’s denial of Appellants’ motion for a directed verdict on whether Universal breached its contractual duty under the insurance policy by making the initial payment based on its field adjuster’s estimate. And we affirm the final judgment based on the jury’s finding that Appellants failed to prove Universal’s payment was a breach of the contract because the record, including the testimony of the corporate representative and both Appellants, supports the jury’s verdict.

AFFIRMED.

BILBREY, KELSEY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

7

Michael A. Cassel of Cassel & Cassel, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellants.

Paulo R. Lima of Russo Lima Appellate Firm, P.A., Miami, for Appellee.