← Case library
1st DCAJuly 22, 2026Reversed and Remanded⭐ Notable

Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Karmo

Case No. 1D2024-3259

In a first-party homeowners claim arising from a water and sewage backup, a jury awarded $335,000 in replacement cost value (or $305,000 actual cash value) against Universal. The First DCA reversed the denial of Universal's motions for remittitur and new trial, holding the award was not supported by competent valuation evidence — the only admitted estimates valued the loss at about $79,680 (RCV) and $50,220 (ACV). Remanded for the trial court to determine the proper measure of damages and order remittitur consistent with the evidence.

Key facts

  • Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co. denied a homeowners claim for water and sewage backup damage to the insured's property.
  • At trial, the only admitted valuation estimates valued the loss at approximately $79,680 in replacement cost value or $50,220 in actual cash value.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

A useful damages-proof decision for first-party property insurance litigation. It confirms that a homeowners verdict must be tethered to competent valuation evidence, and that an insurer is entitled to remittitur or a… — full analysis with a trial

Best value · free

Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.

  • Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
  • Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
  • Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Start my free 30-day trial → No credit card required
👀 Take a quick tour of the site → 60 seconds · click a real case · no login

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.