Breach Of Contract Jury Verdicts Settlements

This commercial dispute had arisen from a failed equipment-manufacturing agreement between Basanite Industries and Upstate Custom Products. Each side had accused the other of breaking core contractual duties. A third party, New Haven, had joined after claiming losses tied to its own agreement with Upstate. The jury had reviewed competing claims of breached obligations, delayed performance, and disputed payments. It ultimately had rejected all of Basanite’s claims. The panel had concluded that Basanite had failed to meet essential contractual duties and that no circumstance had excused the non-performance. Upstate had also prevailed on its defense, though its counterclaim produced no award. New Haven had succeeded on its breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims. The jury had awarded $450,000 in damages plus post-judgment interest, marking the only monetary recovery in this multi-party litigation.

A Miami-Dade County jury issued a $30,077.87 award to homeowner Yiliana Pena after finding that Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company breached its contract by failing to pay her valid property-damage claim. The jury rejected the insurer’s defenses, ruling that Pena complied with all post-loss requirements, including document requests, inspection access, and the Sworn Proof of Loss. The verdict confirmed that Universal failed to meet its burden and was responsible for compensating Pena for the full covered loss to her Cutler Bay home.

In the Miami-Dade Circuit Court case Serafettin Akkoc vs. Asuman Erguc et al, the dispute arose from a failed agreement to purchase the Golden Greek Souvlaki restaurant for $140,000. Plaintiff Serafettin Akkoc paid $91,000 toward the deal, but the Defendants—Asuman and Alper Erguc and Atlas Foods, LLC—refused to transfer ownership or the lease as agreed. The case centered on breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and allegations of fraud. The Ergucs denied wrongdoing and counterclaimed, arguing the buyers could not be trusted and alleging fraudulent misrepresentation. After nearly five years of litigation, a jury reached a decisive verdict on May 29, 2025. The jury found that Asuman Erguc breached the contract and awarded Akkoc $105,000 in damages. All counterclaims brought by the Defendants were dismissed. On June 3, 2025, Judge Beatrice Butchko Sanchez entered the final judgment. With statutory pre-judgment interest calculated at $35,857.50 from January 17, 2020, the total award reached $140,857.50, holding the Defendants jointly and severally liable. This ruling closes a prolonged legal battle over a broken business transaction and affirms the enforceability of written agreements in commercial sales.

A San Diego County jury ruled in favor of Hanh M. Bui, M.D., a Professional Medical Corporation, in a contract dispute arising from the sale of assets from Dr. Kenneth Carr’s cardiology practice. The lawsuit centered on an Asset Purchase Agreement and a Promissory Note that required Dr. Carr to meet several Conditional Obligations before payment became due. Dr. Bui’s Corporation alleged that Dr. Carr failed to satisfy essential conditions, including maintaining his employment agreement, settling financial obligations with former employees, and transferring all clinical research accounts and contracts. The defense argued that Dr. Carr substantially performed and that any shortcomings were minor or caused by the Plaintiff. After reviewing extensive testimony and financial evidence, the jury found Dr. Carr in breach and awarded $194,601 in damages. The verdict confirmed that the unfulfilled conditions materially harmed Dr. Bui’s Corporation and disrupted the intended transition of the cardiology practice.

In the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, the jury delivered a verdict on September 18, 2025, in favor of homeowners Rene Mateo Jr. and Janill Mateo against their insurer, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The Mateos had sued for breach of contract after the insurer allegedly failed to adequately cover direct physical losses sustained during the policy period. The core dispute was whether the damage resulted from a covered event, like a wind-created opening, or an excluded cause, such as wear and tear—a defense the insurer failed to prove. The jury awarded the plaintiffs a total of $61,871.25 in compensatory damages, comprising $19,696.56 for roof damages and $42,174.69 for interior damages caused by water intrusion. This verdict affirms that the insurance policy covered the homeowners’ loss and concluded the matter of factual causation in favor of the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit Alexander Kaller v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company concerned a policyholder's claim for water damage to his condominium unit. The plaintiff alleged the damage stemmed from an accidental discharge of water on or about October 18, 2020, an event he asserted the policy covered. The insurer, UPCIC, denied the claim, arguing the damage resulted from excluded causes like wear and tear or improper maintenance. After a trial focused on expert testimony, the Miami-Dade jury had to first determine if the property suffered a direct physical loss during the policy period. The jury answered this pivotal question with an emphatic "No," immediately halting the proceedings and foreclosing any further discussion of damages or policy exclusions. On November 7, 2024, the jury returned a verdict firmly in favor of the Defendant, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company. This ruling ended the case, confirming that Mr. Kaller had failed to prove a covered loss under the terms of his policy.

The litigation, Rosanna Weber and Randy Weber v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, was a breach of contract action filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County. The homeowners claimed that their property sustained damage from a windstorm that occurred around November 8, 2020, and that their insurer, Citizens, had failed to pay the full, covered cost of the resulting loss. Citizens denied the claim, asserting the damage was caused by non-covered issues such as wear, tear, and deterioration, not a sudden event. The key conflict in the trial became the cause and extent of the damage, with both sides presenting competing expert testimonies. After deliberation, the jury rejected the insurer's defense. The jury first confirmed that the Plaintiffs had proven the damage was indeed caused by a windstorm. Subsequently, on November 6, 2024, the jury returned a verdict setting the total amount of covered damages owed by the insurer to the homeowners at $50,000.00. This finding compelled Citizens to pay the full amount plus any associated interest and the plaintiffs' legal fees.

The case of Clotaire Borgella v. Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company (UPCIC) was a lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade County stemming from the insurer's denial of a property damage claim. The homeowner, Mr. Borgella, claimed his property sustained a direct physical loss during the policy period of November 2019 to November 2020. UPCIC denied the claim, asserting multiple Affirmative Defenses, primarily arguing that the damage was due to excluded causes like faulty workmanship or pre-existing conditions, and that Mr. Borgella failed to comply with his "Duties After Loss." The trial focused on expert testimony about the cause of the loss. The jury ultimately found that a direct physical loss had occurred. Although the jury agreed with the insurer that Mr. Borgella failed to substantially comply with the duty to show the cause of loss, they proceeded to assess damages. On November 7, 2024, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

The case, Mildred and Edgardo Ventura v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company centered on a homeowner's claim for water and mold damage in Broward County, Florida. Plaintiffs Mildred and Edgardo Ventura argued State Farm breached their insurance contract by refusing to cover the loss reported in November 2021. State Farm admitted that damage occurred during the policy period, but its defense hinged on policy exclusions, specifically arguing the damage resulted from continuous or repeated seepage or leakage over time, a non-covered event. The jury in the 17th Judicial Circuit delivered a verdict on August 28, 2025. After the jury confirmed that the homeowners' property sustained damage during the policy period, they answered the critical second question: the jury found that the greater weight of the evidence did show the damage was excluded from coverage by the policy. This ruling validated State Farm’s denial, meaning the Venturas received no recovery for their claim.

Jackson Kwok initiated a lawsuit against Genera Corporation and several other Defendants, including T.Y.C. Brother Industrial Co., Ltd, Innova Holding Corporation, Jerry Wu, and Chun Chi Wu, alleging wrongful termination and retaliation. Kwok claimed he suffered adverse employment action, including termination, after reporting or resisting discrimination, harassment, or possibly illegal business practices. Genera Corporation filed an answer denying the allegations and subsequently lodged a Cross-Complaint for damages and equitable relief against Kwok, Annie Mun Nee Wong, Singgong LLC, and OneRoadFat LLC. The pleadings indicate a dispute over employment contracts, whistleblower protection, and business practices within the Orange County Superior Court system. This summary covers the claims and defenses based on the filed complaints and answers, as the jury verdict and expert disclosures were not provided for review.

The civil action of Jack Bleet and Laureen Bleet v. Lee Seligman and S&R Ventures, Inc. arose from a failed home renovation project for the Plaintiffs' intended rental property in Weston, Florida. The Plaintiffs sued the contractor, S&R Ventures, Inc., and its representative, Lee Seligman, alleging the company failed to complete the renovation, provided substandard work, and abandoned the project, forcing them to incur financial losses including payments for defective work, carrying costs, and lost rental income. The claims presented to the jury were Breach of Contract against S&R Ventures, Inc. and Fraud in the Inducement against Lee Seligman, with the Defendants denying wrongdoing and asserting affirmative defenses. The jury returned a verdict on August 29, 2025 , finding that S&R Ventures, Inc. did enter into and materially breach the March 7, 2022, contract , and awarding the Bleets $26,644.00 in damages on that claim. However, the verdict form for the separate claim of Fraud in the Inducement against Lee Seligman was incomplete, as the key liability questions and the final damages amount were left unanswered

A Miami-Dade jury awarded Plaintiffs Greco Romero, Alejandro Garcia Gachez, and Jesus A. Cabrera Ornelas significant damages in a breach of contract and fraud lawsuit. The suit targeted Newton Cordeiro and The Newt LLC over the loss of luxury timepieces entrusted to the Defendants for sale. Plaintiffs alleged the Defendants failed to insure the watches, gave conflicting stories about an alleged third-party theft, and failed to account for the property. The verdict followed a trial in the 11th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida.