Robertaud Toussaint v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 1, 2026
• Docket: 3D2024-1344
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 1, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________

No. 3D24-1344 Lower Tribunal No. 21-004231-CA-01 ________________

Robertaud Toussaint, Appellant,

vs.

Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Tanya Brinkley, Judge.

Scott J. Edwards, P.A., and Scott J. Edwards (Boca Raton); Vyacheslav Borshchukov, P.A., and Vyacheslav Borshchukov (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant.

Link & Rockenbach, PA., and Kara Rockenbach Link and David A. Noel (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Appellant Robertaud Toussaint appeals the trial court’s final judgment

in favor of his insurer, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company,

following a jury trial in his declaratory judgment action seeking insurance

coverage. The jury found that the claimed damage to Toussaint’s roof was

excluded from coverage because it was the result of wear, tear, and

deterioration, and further found that Toussaint did not prove “by the greater

weight of the evidence that the ensuing damage to the property [was]

covered under the subject policy.”

On appeal, Toussaint only challenges the jury’s finding relating to the

ensuing damage. He contends he was entitled to a new trial on this limited

issue because there was no evidence presented at trial to support the jury’s

verdict that the ensuing damage was not covered under the policy. Having

carefully reviewed the trial transcripts, we conclude the record reflects

conflicting evidence on the issue of whether the ensuing damage was

covered under the policy, including incongruities in Toussaint’s testimony

and the conflicting evidence of the parties’ expert witnesses. See 50 State

Sec. Serv., Inc. v. Giangrandi, 132 So. 3d 1128, 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)

(“If a review of the record establishes that conflicting evidence was presented

at trial, an appellate court cannot conclude that a trial court abused its

discretion in denying the motion [for new trial].”).

2 Furthermore, the jury was instructed—based on jury instructions

expressly agreed to by Toussaint—that the issue it was required to

determine was whether Toussaint proved, by the greater weight of the

evidence, that he suffered a direct physical loss during the policy period. The

jury was then asked to determine—pursuant to a verdict form proposed by

Toussaint himself—whether Toussaint proved by the greater weight of the

evidence that the ensuing damage to the property was covered under the

policy. The jury returned special verdicts against Toussaint on both issues.

Given the conflicting evidence in the record and the presentation of the

issue to the jury for determination, we conclude the trial court did not abuse

its discretion in denying a new trial on the issue of whether the ensuing

damage was covered under the policy.

Affirmed.