Carlton A. Bober - Vernis & Bowling

Carlton A. Bober, Esq.
Managing Attorney
Vernis & Bowling of Broward, P.A. 5821 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: (954) 927-5330
Email: CBober@Florida-Law.com
Fax: (954) 927-5320
Website: www.national-law.com
V-Card Email LinkedIn

Verdicts and Dispositions

Gamalie L. Fleurantin, Et al. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Carlton Bober, Evan Zuckerman, and Ashley M. Arias (Hollywood, FL) (First Party Property/ Appeal) prevailed at the Third Direct Court of Appeals, affirming the Jury Verdict in favor of Citizens. Appellants own a home in Miami, FL, for which they obtained a policy of homeowner’s insurance with Citizens. Appellee first received notice of Appellants’ April 30, 2020 windstorm claim on or about July 14, 2020. Citizens assigned the claim to field adjuster Eric Durow, who inspected the property on July 20, 2020. Mr. Durow did not observe any damage at the property during that inspection which he believed to be storm-related, but rather observed prior repairs including screw holes and screws in the main roof, black tar applied sporadically around the roof, the remnants of prior tarps, and an entire row of shingles that appeared to be glued down with tar. Mr. Durow subsequently recommended that Citizens deny coverage based on the results of his inspection, which recommendation Citizens agreed to and directed Mr. Durow to prepare a denial letter reflecting same.

Appellants subsequently filed this this lawsuit for declaratory relief. The parties then proceeded to trial on this matter, which lasted from July 11, 2022 to July 14, 2022. Appellants moved for directed verdict at the close of Appellee’s case in chief, alleging that Appellee failed to satisfy its burden to demonstrate that Appellants’ claimed damages were attributable to an excluded cause of loss under Appellants’ insurance policy. The trial court denied Appellants’ motion, finding that Mr. Durow’s trial testimony had sufficient evidentiary value to send the case to the jury for a final determination. The jury then entered a verdict in Appellee’s favor, from which Appellants appealed.

On July 2, 2024, Carlton Bober argued before the Third District Court of Appeals that the Trial Court Properly Denied Appellants’ Motion for Directed Verdict as Appellee Provided Sufficient Admissible Evidence During Trial and on July 17, 2024, the Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the Jury Verdict.
Indoor Environmental Restoration Now, Inc. a/a/o Maybet Falcon v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Carlton Bober, Evan Zuckerman, and Ashley M. Arias (Hollywood, FL) (First Party Property/ Appeal) prevailed at the Third Direct Court of Appeals, affirming the granting of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing. The underlying case arose out of Appellant’s claim that Appellee breached its contract with its insured, Maybet Falcon, by refusing to pay for services rendered to Ms. Falcon by Appellant. Appellant alleges that Appellee owes it $2,200 for its mold assessment work pursuant to the Assignment of Benefits Agreement executed by Ms. Falcon.

Appellee moved to dismiss Appellant’s Amended Complaint on the grounds that the assignment agreement violated section 627.7152(2), Florida Statutes, by failing to include a provision allowing the assignor to rescind the assignment agreement by submitting a written notice of rescission. Appellee further alleged that this deficiency triggered the statutory provision invalidating the assignment agreement, thus divesting Appellant of its ability to sue Appellee for breach of contract. On November 22, 2022, the arguments of both parties were presented at the hearing on Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss. Thereafter, the trial court granted Appellee’s motion, dismissed the case with prejudice, and entered final judgment in Appellee’s favor, from which Appellant appealed.

In response to the appeal, we argued that Appellant’s Non-Compliant Assignment Agreement is Void and Invalid and on August 21, 2024, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the Trial Court’s granting of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
Marie Laurent v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Carl Bober and Josh Meyer (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained a Defense Verdict on behalf of their client, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, in a first-party property breach of contract action related to a Tropical Storm Eta claim.

Plaintiff sought the replacement of her roof and payment for damages to the interior of her home. After an inspection by an independent adjuster, Citizens denied her claim due to exclusions in the policy of insurance for wear, tear and deterioration to the roof, as well as the lack of a peril-created opening at the property. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit and provided Citizens with the report of a Haag Certified Roof Inspector, Aryeh Fraser, who testified at trial that the damages he observed to the Plaintiff’s roof were clearly caused by tropical force winds experienced during Tropical Storm Eta. He relied upon a Four Point inspection done 9 months before the storm which showed that the roof had no active leaks and was in satisfactory condition when the policy was issued by Citizens. Fraser provided an estimate to replace both the shingle roof and flat roof at the Plaintiff’s property and also correlated the interior damage to leaks caused by the windstorm. For the defense, expert engineer, John Ellis, testified on behalf of Citizens that there was no wind damage to the Plaintiff’s property caused by Tropical Storm Eta, and that the leaks the homeowner experienced were due to significant ponding which caused long-term deterioration to the flat roof portion of the roofing system, as well as wear and tear to the shingle roof. He also used five years of aerial photographs of the Plaintiffs’ property preceding the reported date of loss to show the jury pre-existing damages and repairs (including photos of repairs made just weeks before the 4 Point inspector said the roof wasn’t leaking) in addition to the progression of the deterioration due to the ponding.

The jury found in favor of Citizens finding that Plaintiff failed to prove she sustained a physical loss during the policy period. Defendant’s motion seeking the recovery of Citizens’ attorney’s fees and costs is pending.

Plaintiff’s Demand during trial: $153K plus attorney’s fees and costs.
Jessie Perez-Candela et al v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Carl Bober and Ashley Arias (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained a Defense Verdict on behalf of their client, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, in a first-party property breach of contract action related to a windstorm claim brought by Plaintiffs against their homeowners’ insurance carrier in a jury trial that took place in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Plaintiffs brought a breach of contract action regarding a residential property insurance claim to their property related to a reported windstorm loss. Plaintiffs sought payment for the replacement of their roof and resulting water damages to the interior of their home. Plaintiffs had purchased their home six months before the windstorm after obtaining an inspection report from a licensed home inspector indicating that the roof had no leaks and still had a number of years of useful life remaining.

After an inspection by an independent adjuster, Citizens denied their claim due to exclusions in the policy of insurance for wear, tear, and deterioration to the roof, as well as the lack of a peril-created opening at the property. Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit and argued that there had been no leaks at the property until the reported windstorm, and that Citizens had elected to insure the property despite any present claims of pre-existing wear and tear. Plaintiffs also provided Citizens with the report of a licensed professional engineer, Roy Bodman, who testified at trial that the damages he observed to the Plaintiffs’ roof were caused by uplift and ‘chatter’ to the concrete tiles as the result of the winds experienced during the reported wind event. He also correlated the interior damage to leaks caused by the windstorm. For the defense, expert engineer, Shawn Bunch, testified on behalf of Citizens that there was no wind damage to the Plaintiffs’ property caused by the reported windstorm, and that the leaks the homeowners experienced were due to long-term deterioration of the roofing system, including evident repairs to the same areas being claimed by the Plaintiffs.

The jury found in favor of Citizens finding that the damage to the Plaintiffs’ property was due to wear, tear and deterioration. Defendant’s motion seeking the recovery of Citizens’ attorney’s fees and costs is pending.
Gynette Jacobs et al v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Carl Bober and Ashley Arias (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained a Defense Verdict on behalf of their client, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, in a first-party property breach of contract action related to a windstorm claim in a jury trial that took place in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Plaintiffs brought a breach of contract action regarding a residential property insurance claim to their home related to a reported windstorm loss. Plaintiffs sought reimbursement for paid repairs to their roof and payment for damages to the interior of their home. After an inspection by an independent adjuster, Citizens denied their claim due to exclusions in the policy of insurance for wear, tear and deterioration to the roof, as well as the lack of a peril-created opening at the property. Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit and provided Citizens with the report of a general contractor, who testified at trial that the damages he observed to the Plaintiffs’ roof were clearly caused by uplift to the concrete tiles as the result of the winds experienced during the reported wind event. He also correlated the interior damage to leaks caused by the windstorm. For the defense, the expert roofing contractor and expert engineer testified on behalf of Citizens that there was no wind damage to the Plaintiffs’ property caused by the reported windstorm, and that the leaks the homeowners experienced were due to long-term deterioration of the roofing system and windows respectively. Plaintiffs’ own roofing repair records, which they failed to share with their own trial expert, proved the long-term deterioration.

The jury found in favor of Citizens finding that the damage to the Plaintiffs’ property was due to wear, tear and deterioration. Defendant’s motion seeking the recovery of Citizens’ attorney’s fees and costs is pending.
Zachary Baro, et al v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Carl Bober and Paulette Fouts (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained a Defense Verdict on behalf of their client, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, in a first-party property breach of contract action related to a windstorm claim brought by Plaintiffs against their homeowners’ insurance carrier in a jury trial that took place in Broward County Circuit Court.

Plaintiffs brought a breach of contract action regarding a residential property insurance claim to their home related to a reported windstorm loss. Plaintiffs sought the replacement of their roof and payment for damages to the interior of their home. After an inspection by an independent adjuster, Citizens denied their claim due to exclusions in the policy of insurance for wear, tear and deterioration to the roof, as well as the lack of a peril-created opening at the property. Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit and provided Citizens with the report of an engineer who testified at trial that the damages he observed to the Plaintiffs’ roof were clearly caused by the winds experienced during the reported wind event and that due to the extensive nature of the physical loss the shingle roof had to be replaced, as well as a newer flat roof that had been installed in 2012. He also correlated the interior damage to leaks caused by the windstorm. For the defense, an expert engineer testified on behalf of Citizens that there was no wind damage to the Plaintiffs’ property caused by the reported windstorm, and that the leaks the homeowners experienced were due to significant ponding which caused long-term deterioration of the flat roof portion of the roofing system. He also used nine years of aerial photographs of the Plaintiffs’ property preceding the reported date of loss to show the jury the progression of the deterioration due to the ponding.

The jury found in favor of Citizens finding that the damage to the Plaintiffs’ property was due to wear, tear and deterioration. Defendant’s motion seeking the recovery of Citizens’ attorney’s fees and costs is pending.

Plaintiff’s demand during trial was $125,000.00 inclusive of attorney’s fees and costs.
Cristian and Vanessa Rivera v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Carl Bober and Paulette Fouts (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained their second Defense Verdict in the past month on behalf of their client, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, in a first-party property declaratory action related to Hurricane Irma brought by Plaintiffs against their homeowners’ insurance carrier in a jury trial that took place in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, between December 12th through December 15th, 2023.

Plaintiffs brought a declaratory relief action regarding a residential property insurance claim to their home related to a Hurricane Irma claim. Plaintiffs initially reported the claim for damage to their roof, exterior wall and to the interior of their home over two years and eight months after the hurricane, claiming that they reported the loss as soon as they became aware of leaks into their living room which occurred through their exterior stucco wall, and that they did not know the damage was caused by the hurricane until just before reporting it when they were informed of its cause by their public adjuster. After investigating, Citizens denied the claim due to its late reporting having severely prejudiced their ability to fairly investigate the loss. Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit and provided Citizens with the report of an engineer, Al Brizuela, who testified at trial that the damages he observed following his inspection were clearly caused by winds experienced during Hurricane Irma. For the defense, expert engineer, Neil Greenspoon, testified on behalf of Citizens that there was no wind damage to the Plaintiffs’ property caused by Hurricane Irma, and that both the leaks and issues the homeowners experienced were due to defective installation of the exterior stucco wall and the interior flooring in the residence. He also found evidence of damage that pre-existed the policy period in this case.

The jury found in favor of Citizens finding that Plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden to prove that their property sustained a direct physical loss during the policy period. Defendant’s motion seeking the recovery of Citizens’ costs, and potentially its attorney’s fees, is pending.

Plaintiff’s Demand prior to trial: $150K inclusive of attorney’s fees and costs.
Blas & Raysa Baldepina v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Carl Bober and Paulette Fouts (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained a Defense Verdict on behalf of their client, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, in a first party property breach of contract action brought by Plaintiffs against their homeowners insurance carrier in a jury trial that took place in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, between November 13th -16th, 2023. Of interest, the Broward County courthouse was ordered closed due to rain, high winds and flooding, just before the jury went out to deliberate. The parties and the jury nevertheless came to the closed courthouse to deliberate in this windstorm damage case, and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of our client.

Plaintiffs brought a breach of contract suit regarding a residential property insurance claim to their home related to a windstorm claim. Plaintiffs reported a claim for damage to their roof and water damage to the interior of their home, which Citizens denied due to long-term wear and tear in addition to the absence of any peril-created opening in the roof, as well as for pre-existing damages. The Plaintiffs initially sought payment for the complete replacement of their roof reportedly due to tornado-like winds as well as repairs to ceilings and walls in several rooms at the property, although they eventually withdrew their interior damages claim. Plaintiff’s expert Architect Zachary Wethington testified at trial that the Plaintiffs’ roof had been significantly damaged due to winds preceding the reported DOL, and that the Plaintiffs subsequently discovered the damage when numerous interior leaks occurred throughout a number of rooms inside their home. For the defense, expert engineer Jeffrey Sanchez testified that there was in fact wind damage to the roof but that it was related to a prior storm, Hurricane Irma, which was outside the policy period, and that the remainder of the damaged portions of the roof were due to wear, tear and deterioration.

The jury found in favor of Citizens finding that Plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden to prove that their property sustained a direct physical loss due to wind during the policy period. Defendant’s motion seeking the recovery of Citizens’ attorney’s fees and costs is pending.

Plaintiff’s Demand at Trial: $83,179.59, then reduced at trial to $36,325.43 for the roof only, plus claimed attorney’s fees and costs in excess of $100K+.
Novemie Bautista v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Carl Bober and Ashley Arias (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained a Defense Verdict on behalf of their client, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, in a first-party property breach of contract action brought by Plaintiff against her homeowners insurance carrier in a jury trial that took place in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Plaintiff brought a breach of contract suit regarding a residential property insurance claim to her home related to Hurricane Irma. Plaintiff reported a claim for damage to her roof and water damage to the interior of her home, which Citizens had denied due to the late reporting of the loss having prejudiced their investigation of the claim. The Plaintiff sought payment for the complete replacement of her roof and repairs to ceilings and walls in several rooms at the property. Plaintiff’s expert testified at trial that 38% of the roof had been damaged due to the winds from Hurricane Irma and that as a result, it had to be replaced per the Florida Building Code. For the defense, an expert engineer testified that while he found no wind damage to the roof that he could definitively correlate to Hurricane Irma, due to the late notice related to the passage of time between the storm and the report of the Plaintiff’s claim, as well as intervening undocumented repairs, it was not possible for him to rule out that Hurricane Irma may have damaged the Plaintiff’s property.

In less than 25 minutes, the jury found in favor of Citizens finding that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to show that her property sustained a direct physical loss at the time of Hurricane Irma during the policy period. Defendant’s motion seeking the recovery of Citizens’ attorney’s fees and costs is pending.

Plaintiff’s Demand at Trial: $76,011.51, plus claimed attorney’s fees and costs in excess of $100K+.
Isabel Lopez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Carl Bober and Paulette Fouts (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained a Defense Verdict on behalf of their client, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, in a first party property breach of contract action brought by Plaintiff against her homeowners insurance carrier in a jury trial that took place in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Plaintiff brought a breach of contract suit regarding a residential property insurance claim to her home related to a reported water supply line leak to her refrigerator, which Citizens had denied due to their investigation revealing no direct physical loss as a result of the reported claim, as well as for unrelated damages that were excluded under a policy exclusion for constant or repeated leakage. The Plaintiff sought payment for the replacement of her kitchen including cabinetry, floors and walls at the property, as well as continuous flooring throughout much of her home. Plaintiff’s expert Peter Lemus testified at trial that the one-time reported leak from the pressurized supply line was the cause of the claimed damages and about the scope of the repairs needed as a result. For the defense, Citizen’s field adjuster testified that his inspection revealed no evidence of a direct physical loss, and that he recommended an expert be retained to further evaluate the claim. Expert engineer Dan Connery testified that he found no evidence the flooding event claimed by Plaintiff had occurred as reported by the Plaintiff. The jury found in favor of Citizens finding that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to show that her property sustained a direct physical loss on the reported date of the incident. Defendant’s motion seeking the recovery of Citizen’s attorney’s fees and costs is pending.

The Plaintiff’s last demand at trial was $45,382.33, plus claimed attorney’s fees and costs in excess of $100K+.
Linda Belizaire v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Carl Bober and Tamar Hoo-Pagan (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained a Defense Verdict on behalf of their client, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, in a first party property breach of contract action brought by Plaintiff against her homeowners insurance carrier in a jury trial that took place in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, between November 29^th through December 2^nd, 2022.

Plaintiff brought a breach of contract suit regarding a residential property insurance claim to her home related to a reported windstorm loss, which Citizens had denied due to damages caused by wear and tear and for a policy exclusion for no peril opening allowing rain to cause interior damages . The Plaintiff initially sought payment for the replacement of her roof, which she had personally already paid for by the time of trial following the denial of her claim, as well as for interior damages to her ceilings, floors and walls at the property. Plaintiff claimed that the damages were all due to the windstorm. Plaintiff’s expert testified at trial that the wind and/or hail damaged the Plaintiff’s roof and that it needed to be replaced as a result. However, at trial, Plaintiff for the first time withdrew the interior damage portion of her claim and instead asked the jury in closing argument only for the reimbursement of her actual expenses to replace her roof. For the defense, Citizen’s field adjuster testified that the older roof exhibited evidence of wear, tear and deterioration, as well as that he found no opening in the roof apart from pre-existing holes in a chimney vent stack, and so recommended denial of the claim. The jury found in favor of Citizens finding that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden to show that wind damaged her property. Defendant’s motion seeking the recovery of Citizen’s attorney’s fees and costs is pending.

Plaintiff’s demand at trial was $86,109.91, reduced to $26,000, plus claimed attorney’s fees and costs in excess of $100K+.
Silvia Tercero v. Sobarzo Enterprises, Inc. dba Sedano’s Supermarket #14
Carl Bober and Ashley Arias (Hollywood, FL) (Premises Liability) obtained Summary Judgment in favor of our client in the negligence case of Silvia Tercero v. Sobarzo Enterprises, Inc. dba Sedano’s Supermarket #14. The 54-year old Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on some grapes and water at our client’s grocery store, and claimed to have sustained herniated discs and knee derangement, with surgical recommendations. Plaintiff argued that a former employee in the produce section observed the creation of the spill and relied upon the store surveillance video from the date of the incident, which appeared to show the employee facing in the direction of the spill at the time it occurred, to argue that the defendant had actual and/or constructive notice of the condition. In our defense, we obtained a post-suit recreation photograph from the area where the employee was seen standing in the video at the time of the spill which affirmatively showed that the employee could not have been able to see the area of the spill as claimed by opposing counsel, and also argued that the interval of time between the creation of the spill and the Plaintiff’s accident was otherwise insufficient as a matter of law. Utilizing the new federal summary judgment standard, the Court found that no reasonable jury could find that Sedano’s had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, and that there was no evidence of negligence on its part. Our Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Costs is pending.
Johanna Aguirre Caceres v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Carl Bober and Paulette Fouts (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained a Defense Verdict on behalf of their client, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, in a first party property breach of contract action brought by Plaintiff against her homeowners insurance carrier in the case Johanna Aguirre Caceres v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.

Plaintiff brought a breach of contract suit regarding a residential property insurance claim to her home related to a plumbing water leak, which Citizens had denied based upon the lack of direct physical loss to the property. The Plaintiff sought payment for interior damages including the replacement of her entire kitchen, and all of the flooring throughout her home. Plaintiff claimed that the loss was due to a sudden leak from under her kitchen sink which occurred while she was at work damaging the kitchen cabinets and flooring. Plaintiff’s public adjuster testified that the leak caused the damage and testified regarding the need for and cost of replacement. For the defense, Citizen’s field adjuster and expert engineer testified that the Plaintiff’s property was not damaged due to the leak, that the claimed damage was due entirely to a subsequent unrelated event, and that the reported loss could not have occurred in the manner claimed by the Plaintiff and her public adjuster. The jury found in favor of Citizens on Plaintiff’s claim, finding that she did not prove that she sustained a physical loss during the policy period. Defendant’s motion seeking the recovery of Citizen’s attorney’s fees and costs is pending.

Plaintiff’s demand at trial was $31,873.28 plus interest and claimed attorney’s fees and costs in excess of $80,000.00.
Goldie Pitt v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Carl Bober and Ashley Arias (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained a Defense Verdict on behalf of their client, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, in a first party property breach of contract action brought by Plaintiff against her homeowners insurance carrier in a jury trial that took place in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, between June 21st to June 23rd, 2022.

An elderly widowed Plaintiff brought a breach of contract suit regarding a residential property insurance claim to her home related to a Hurricane Irma loss, which Citizens had denied due to policy exclusions for damages caused by wear and tear, rain, and for pre-existing damages. The Plaintiff sought payment for the replacement of her roof, which she had personally already paid for by the time of trial following the denial of her claim by Citizens, as well as for interior damages to her ceilings and walls in several rooms of the property. Plaintiff claimed that the damages were all due to Hurricane Irma. For the defense, Citizen’s field adjuster and expert engineer testified that the damages were not due to wind from the hurricane, but instead were due to excluded causes under the policy. Our expert also used aerial photography to prove there was no material change in the condition of the roof from before and after the hurricane, as well as pre-hurricane photographs which showed its prior long term deterioration.

The jury found in favor of Citizens on Plaintiff’s roof claim, finding that she did not prove that she sustained a physical loss during the policy period at all. The trial judge also directed a verdict in Citizens’ favor on the Plaintiff’s interior damage claims. Defendant’s motion seeking the recovery of Citizen’s attorney’s fees and costs is pending.
Plaintiff’s Demand at Trial: $41,494.64 plus claimed attorney’s fees and costs in excess of $100K+.
Julio Camacho & Yoendry Echevarria v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Carl Bober and Evan Zuckerman (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained a Defense Verdict following a jury trial in Fort Lauderdale in the case of Julio Camacho & Yoendry Echevarria v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The case concerned a first party property insurance residential claim related to Hurricane Irma. Plaintiffs claimed that two separate roof systems at their home were severely damaged due to wind from the hurricane and that they required full replacement. Plaintiffs also claimed interior damage to their home due to resulting water leaks which began immediately after the date of the storm.

Citizens denied the claim because their field adjuster did not find that the damage to the roofs was due to wind and that the interior damages were not covered unless wind first damaged the roofs and created an opening through which rain entered. At trial, one of the Plaintiffs testified that they had never had any roof leaks before the hurricane. Opposing counsel introduced a four-point inspection report done five years earlier which indicated the roofs were in excellent condition and had no leaks. Plaintiff’s public adjuster testified that he had been in the Plaintiffs’ home just two weeks before the hurricane on an unrelated claim and saw no ceiling stains. Plaintiffs’ expert engineer Al Brizuela inspected the Plaintiff’s property and determined that the cause of the leaks was solely due to the hurricane. Brizuela testified that the roofs were so damaged that they needed to be replaced.

For the defense, Citizens’ expert engineer Brandon Mintz testified that the Plaintiffs’ damages were solely due to wear and tear to the roofs, and not due to Hurricane Irma, using aerial photography over a ten year period prior to the storm showing the progression of deterioration. The jury found in favor of Citizens, but did not reach the question of whether it had proven its affirmative defense of wear and tear; instead, the jury found that Plaintiffs’ did not sustain any physical loss to their home during the policy period from the hurricane. Our motion to seek the recovery of Citizen’s taxable costs is pending.
Lidda Perera & Francisco Perez v. Security First Insurance Company
Carl Bober and Evan Zuckerman (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained a defense verdict following a jury trial in Fort Lauderdale in the case of Lidda Perera & Francisco Perez v. Security First Insurance Company. The case concerned a first party property insurance claim related to a water loss allegedly causing damage throughout the residence, for which Security First had extended coverage. The trial involved a scope and pricing dispute, with the Plaintiffs seeking the full replacement of their kitchen cabinetry, as well as the replacement of drywall/baseboards/painting in several rooms of their home. Opposing counsel from the Strems firm had been demanding in excess of $100K to fully resolve the case. Plaintiff Lidda Perera claimed that the prior payment was insufficient to repair all of their damages, even though she had only made minimal repairs and had not used most of the money she had previously been paid. Plaintiff’s expert general contractor testified that the cost to properly compensate the Plaintiffs for their damages well-exceeded the prior payment. For the defense, Security First’s expert general contractor testified that the scope and price of the repairs allowed by Security First were appropriate, that no additional payment was required, and that he personally would have made the repairs for the amount previously paid for the loss. The jury found in favor of Security First in thirty minutes, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the cost to repair the water leak damages exceeded the amount already paid by Security First. Our motion to seek the recovery of Security First’s attorney’s fees and costs is pending.
Maryse Sterlin v. Target
Carl Bober (Hollywood, FL)(Premises Liability) obtained Summary Judgment on behalf of our client, Target Corporation, in the Broward County Circuit Court case of Maryse Sterlin v. Target. Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell due to the negligent presence of a plastic item on the floor, and claimed that she had to undergo surgery to her knee as a result. In support of the Plaintiff’s claim, opposing counsel also filed a motion requesting a Valcin jury instruction, specifically seeking that the Court instruct the jury that it should presume negligence in this case, based upon the alleged spoliation of evidence related to the failure to preserve all surveillance video taken at the store on the date of the incident. Through discovery, we were able to establish that Target had no actual or constructive notice of the object on the floor. We were also able to prove to the Court that the Plaintiff’s claim of spoliation was legally insufficient, since Target had no legal duty to preserve the surveillance as the request to save it was not received until after the normal retention period of the video, and also because the Plaintiff’s arguments relied on an impermissible stacking of inferences which Florida law does not permit. The trial judge denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for the Valcin spoliation instruction, and granted our Final Motion for Summary Judgment. Our Motion to Tax Costs is pending.
Carolyn Blue and Ashley Skipper v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Carl Bober and Donna Romero (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained a defense verdict following a jury trial in Fort Lauderdale in the case of Carolyn Blue and Ashley Skipper v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The case involved a first party property insurance water loss allegedly causing tile floor damage, with the Plaintiffs seeking the replacement of all the tile in their home following a denial of their claim. Opposing counsel had been demanding $150K until just before trial against our expired $50K Proposal for Settlement. Plaintiff Carolyn Blue claimed at trial that she first noticed cracked floor tile in her master bedroom following a bathroom leak. Plaintiff’s expert general contractor testified that the cause of the Plaintiff’s damaged tile was due to water. For the defense, Citizens’ expert engineer testified that the damage to the floor tile was instead the result of improper installation, and also showed the jury that a number of the claimed cracks in the floor tile pre-existed the reported date of loss. The jury found in favor of Citizens, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to prove that they sustained a physical loss to their property during the policy period. Our motion to seek the recovery of Citizens’ attorney’s fees and costs is pending.
Litdell McDonald v. Eric Newman
Carl Bober (Hollywood, FL)(Personal Injury) obtained summary judgment in a case involving a fire which occurred at our client’s property resulting in a total loss and alleged serious burns to the Plaintiff tenant. The specific allegations of the Complaint, which were made in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County Circuit Court, were that our client negligently maintained the electrical wiring at his rental property which caused a fire during which the Plaintiff was severely burned. The Plaintiff further claimed that he had personally informed our landlord client about the problems but that he failed to take any corrective action. Through discovery, however, we were able to establish that the Plaintiff, who did side jobs as an auto mechanic, kept numerous flammable items in the rental apartment. We also retained a cause and origin expert who was able to conclusively show that it was in fact the presence of gasoline kept in the apartment by the Plaintiff – which was unknown to our client – that ultimately caused the fire and his injuries. The trial judge found that there was no negligence by our client and granted our Final Motion for Summary Judgment. Our motion to recover our client’s attorney’s fees and costs, which was the result of an expired Proposal for Settlement previously made to the Plaintiff, is pending.

Areas Of Practice

Automobile Liability (PIP/PD/BI/UM)
Construction and Construction Defect Litigation
Coverage & Declaratory Judgment Actions
Cyber Security & Data Privacy
Director & Officer Liability (D&O)
Employment Law/Employment Litigation
Errors & Omissions Liability (E&O)
First and Third Party Property and Casualty Claims
Hurricane Claims
Liability Defense
Liquor Liability
Premises Liability
Product Liability
Professional Liability/E & O
SIU/Suspicious & Fraudulent Claims
Wrongful Death

Bar & Court Admission

Admitted to the Florida Bar, 1989
Admitted to the District of Columbia Bar, 1992
Admitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 1995
Admitted to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 2011
Admitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2011

Education

Graduate:
George Washington University, National Law Center, Juris Doctor, 1989
Honors:
Full academic tuition scholarship awarded for all three years of law school
Undergraduate:
Emory University, Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Political Science, 1986
Honors:
Dean's List
AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rated by Martindale-Hubbell
Past President, Broward County Hispanic Bar Association
Listed in "South Florida's Top Rated Lawyers"

Languages

Spanish

Carlton Bober was born in Miami, Florida. He graduated from Emory University in 1986 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in both Economics and Political Science. While at Emory, Carl’s honors included being selected for the Dean’s List and ranking in the top 20% of his class. He subsequently obtained his Juris Doctor from the George Washington University National Law Center in 1989, which he attended after receiving a full academic tuition scholarship for all three years of law school. At George Washington, Carl was elected by his fellow students to serve as a representative to the Student Bar Association.

Carl is recognized as an AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rated by Martindale-Hubbell, its highest possible rating awarded based upon excellence in legal ability and ethical standards, and is listed in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers as well as A.M Best’s Recommended Insurance Attorneys. He was also named in “South Florida’s Top Rated Lawyers” by Legal Leaders, a publication assembled from peer review ratings. He maintains an extensive trial practice in both federal and state court as lead counsel for major corporate, insurance defense and governmental clients. His experience includes the handling of lawsuits involving claims of wrongful death, serious personal injury, premises liability, insurance coverage, first and third party property claims, auto negligence, construction defects and construction law issues, negligent supervision/security, professional malpractice, product liability and employment discrimination. Carl also defends major insurance companies in significant property coverage claims including issues of breach of contract, declaratory relief, bad faith, arson, fraud and hurricane claims. His representation of employers in federal discrimination suits includes matters arising under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Florida Civil Rights Act. He has personally defended his clients as first-chair attorney in over fifty jury trials.

Carl, who is fluent in Spanish, is a former Assistant Public Defender for Miami-Dade County in the Felony Trial Division. He is also a Past President of Broward County Hispanic Bar Association and served for many years on its Board of Directors. Carl has been awarded the Hispanic Community Awareness Award by the Nova Southeastern University Law School Hispanic Law Students Association. He was also appointed by the President of the Florida Bar to the Juvenile Court Rules Committee as well as to Florida Bar Grievance Committee 17F, and is a member of the Broward and Miami-Dade County Bar Associations, the Cuban American Bar Association, and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Carl joined VERNIS & BOWLING of Broward in October 2002 as managing attorney of its Liability Department. He is admitted to practice in all State Courts in Florida, the United States District Court for the Southern District and Middle District of Florida, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the District of Columbia.

Footer