Attorney Successfully Defends $9.28 Million Miami Verdict in Federal Appeal

This win has been a long time coming. In a published opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit just agreed with our arguments that there was a reasonable basis in the evidence for a federal jury to find that our Miami client, AM Grand, suffered $9.28 million in damages from Hurricane Irma, rejecting the insurance company’s argument that the verdict was speculative and excessive. AM Grand Court Lakes LLC v. Rockhill Ins. Co., 20-13954, 2023 WL 3813777, at *1 (11th Cir. June 5, 2023).

After a Miami jury awarded AM Grand $9.28 million on its claim for breach of an insurance policy in federal court, Rockhill Insurance Co. appealed. At trial Rockhill claimed the damage was under the deductible, while AM Grand claimed the damage was over the $15.1 million policy limit. On appeal, Rockhill argued (among other things) that there was no in-between evidence or argument.

The defense on appeal was straightforward: there was plenty of in-between evidence, and the jury was free to reject the all-or-nothing theories of damage presented by both sides. We also argued that Rockhill failed to preserve its key argument and had taken a logically inconsistent position with respect to its motion for judgment as a matter of law.

The court heard oral argument in Miami in January, then issued a lengthy opinion last week, on June 5, agreeing with our arguments on appeal—every one of them.

This case is typical of a case where oral argument is helpful: a fact-heavy record with complex arguments that can be understood better through the use of examples, comparisons, hypotheticals, questions, and answers. Specifically, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal noted that it relied on appellate attorney Samuel Alexander’s hypotheticals during oral argument:

As AM Grand's counsel explained at oral argument, the jury could have found that Building A1, which covered approximately 27,000 square feet, suffered both roof and interior damage from the hurricane and that AM Grand would need to rebuild this building. Using Gonzalez's damages model, the jury could have found that it would cost between $5,400,000 and $10,800,000 to rebuild. Or the jury could have found that Buildings A1 and A2, which together totaled approximately 44,000 square feet, both needed to be rebuilt due to roof and interior damage from the storm. Applying Gonzalez's damages model to this scenario, the jury could have found that it would cost between $8,800,000 and $17,600,000 to rebuild Buildings A1 and A2. Under either of these additional scenarios, the trial evidence would have supported the jury's $9,280,000 verdict.

AM Grand Court Lakes LLC v. Rockhill Ins. Co., 20-13954, 2023 WL 3813777, at *8 (11th Cir. June 5, 2023).

This case took years to work its way through the courts. But our client trusted in the process, and we achieved justice in the end.