Evan A. Zuckerman - Vernis & Bowling

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

Verdicts and Dispositions

Empire Pro Restoration Inc. a/a/o Bowden, Lambert & Elaine v. Citizens
Evan Zuckerman (Hollywood, FL) (First Party Property/Appeal) prevailed at the Fourth Direct Court of Appeals, obtaining an opinion affirming the validity of a proposal for settlement with an incorporated release that pre-dated the Florida Supreme Court’s revision of to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 eliminating a party’s ability to condition proposal acceptance on the execution of non-monetary conditions. The underlying case arose following the trial court’s granting of Citizens’ motion for entitlement to fees predicated upon a proposal for settlement after first obtaining a final judgment in its favor on Plaintiff’s complaint for breach of contract relating to an assignment of benefits agreement.

Empire Pro appealed the trial court’s decision, alleging that the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision (In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, 345 So. 3d 845, 846 (Fla. 2022)), eliminated a party’s right to enforce a pre-revision proposal that contained non-monetary conditions such as releases. We argued that proposals which were valid at the time of service remain enforceable notwithstanding the rule’s revision. The Fourth District Court of Appeals agreed, issuing a per curiam opinion affirming the trial court’s decision.
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.
Angelica Camacho v. Citizens
Evan Zuckerman (Hollywood, FL) (Property) obtained Summary Judgment in a water loss claim for Citizens Property Insurance Corporation on a post-loss document production issue.

Plaintiff Angelica Camacho made a claim for water damage that Citizens’ field adjuster discovered during his investigation of a late-reported Hurricane Irma claim. The damage was allegedly caused by a supply line leak resulting from water treatment chemicals used by the City of Miramar. During the claim investigation, Citizens scheduled an examination under oath (EUO) at which it requested invoices and estimates from the Plaintiff relating to repair work performed. The Plaintiff failed to provide all the documentation she possessed and Citizens denied her claim.

The case proceeded to a hearing on our MSJ with the only defense being the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with her post-loss obligations by not providing the requested documents. While Plaintiff, through counsel, attempted to defeat the motion by showing that she had provided at least some documents to Citizens’ counsel during the EUO, the Court granted the defense’s summary judgment motion, noting that Plaintiff’s attempted compliance was insufficient as a matter of law.
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.
Jose Rosales v. Castle Key Insurance Company
Evan Zuckerman and Tom Paradise (Hollywood, FL) (1st Party Property) obtained a defense verdict on behalf of Castle Key Insurance Co. in the defense of a 1st party property damage claim litigated against the Strems Law Firm.

The defense verdict was obtained following a West Palm Beach jury trial in the case of Rosales, Jose v. Castle Key Insurance Company. Plaintiff Jose Rosales filed a claim with Castle Key seeking over $43,000.00 for damages caused by a washing machine supply line leak. The file was investigated by Castle Key’s special investigations unit with the help of V&B attorneys due to the Plaintiff’s multiple claims and failures to comply with the carrier’s pre-suit requests for information. After three years of litigation, the case proceeded to trial with a $250,000.00 final demand from Plaintiff’s counsel.

At trial, Plaintiff testified that a high-volume leak damaged his garage, laundry room, and kitchen, supporting that assertion with testimony from expert general contractor Edgard de Olazabal. Plaintiff’s wife Marisol Rosales also testified about the post-incident clean-up and resulting damage. The defense presented testimony from field adjuster Keith Hardy and engineer S. Selim Cerci, both of whom stated that the damages they observed were not consistent with the leak described by the Plaintiff. The jury returned a defense verdict after deliberating for about thirty minutes, finding that the Plaintiff failed to prove that the claimed damages actually resulted from the leak. Our motion for attorney’s fees and costs is pending pursuant to an expired proposal for settlement.
Marco Berger v. Citizens
Evan Zuckerman (Hollywood, FL) (First Party Property) obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The homeowner Plaintiff, represented by the Strems Law Firm, filed a Complaint for Breach of Contract alleging that his property suffered damage to due to a roof/rainwater leak, and that Citizens had improperly denied the claim. Citizens originally denied the Plaintiff’s claim as there was no roof opening caused by a peril insured against under the policy, so any interior damage caused by rainwater infiltration was excluded from coverage. After deposing the plaintiff and his wife, as well as retaining an expert to perform a roof evaluation, we filed a Motion for Summary Judgment supported by the expert’s affidavit. The trial judge granted Final Judgment in Citizens’ favor, and our Motion for Entitlement to Recover Attorney’s Fees and Costs, filed pursuant to an expired Proposal for Settlement, is currently pending.

Areas Of Practice

Automobile Liability (PIP/PD/BI/UM)
Business & Commercial Law
Civil Litigation
First and Third Party Property and Casualty Claims
Hurricane Claims
Maritime Law
Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution
Negligent Security
Premises Liability
Professional Liability/E & O
SIU/Suspicious & Fraudulent Claims

Bar & Court Admission

Florida Bar
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Broward County Bar Association
American Bar Association

Education

Graduate:
University of Florida Levin College of Law, Gainesville, FL., J.D., 2007
Honors:
Dean's List, 2005
Productions Chair, University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2006 - 2007
Undergraduate:
University of Florida, B.A. in Anthropology, magna cum laude, 2004
University of Florida, B.A. in Criminology, magna cum laude, 2004
University of Florida, minor degree in Business Administration, 2004

Evan A. Zuckerman joined Vernis & Bowling of Broward in 2008, and maintains an extensive practice in both federal and state courts as counsel for major corporate, insurance, and governmental clients. His areas of practice include personal injury, premises liability, insurance coverage, first and third party property claims, auto negligence, construction defects, and the defense of Title III Americans with Disability Act claims. Evan has obtained numerous summary judgments on behalf of clients, and has helped obtain favorable jury verdicts in federal and state court trials.

He is admitted to practice in all Florida State Courts, the United States District Courts for the Southern, Middle, and Northern Districts of Florida, as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Evan was born in Miami, Florida, and graduated magna cum laude from the University of Florida in 2004 with a double major in Anthropology and Criminology. He subsequently obtained his Juris Doctor from the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law in 2007, and during law school was elected as the Productions Chair for the Journal of Law and Public Policy. Evan is an avid sports and culture fan whose hobbies include following the Miami Dolphins, Miami Hurricanes, and Florida Gators, as well as participation in some of South Florida’s influential culinary and arts organizations.

Footer