Case Law Update: Homeowners Choice v. Moise — Third DCA Affirms $240,000 Verdict, Vibration Damage Not Barred by Earth Movement Exclusion

On October 28, 2026, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a jury verdict for a Miami homeowner against Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company in Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Moise, No. 3D24-1000. The insured, Sandra Moise, claimed her house cracked from vibrations caused by demolition next door; the insurer argued the policy’s earth movement and settlement exclusions barred coverage. Judge Bokor, joined by Chief Judge Scales and Judge Miller, affirmed “in all respects”; the opinion is not final until any timely rehearing motion is resolved.

The Facts in the Opinion

According to the opinion, the Homeowners Choice policy on the Miami home took effect May 8, 2013, and the parties agreed the damage occurred March 1, 2014, during demolition next door. Ms. Moise testified she was home, felt vibrations, and saw picture frames shifting and shaking; she first noticed cracking to her floors, walls, and ceiling on March 3, 2014.

The insurer’s engineering firm, Bracken Engineering, inspected on May 6, 2014, and attributed the damage to material shrinkage or settlement. Homeowners Choice denied the claim on June 6, 2014. Ms. Moise sued on August 27, 2014, in Miami-Dade Circuit Court (No. 14-22252-CA-01). Her expert concluded the damage was caused by “the vibration created by the impact of the heavy construction equipment” next door, and his affidavit stated that “[t]he vibrations damaged the property without displacement of the earth.”

The trial court denied the insurer’s summary judgment motion on the earth movement exclusion, ruling that vibration damage was not among the listed exclusions. After a jury trial in November 2022, the jury found the damage was not excluded and awarded $240,000. Final judgment, including prejudgment interest, was entered May 1, 2024.

What the Third District Decided

1. Vibration without earth movement is a jury question, not an automatic exclusion. The policy excluded losses caused by earthquake, landslide, sinkholes, “earth sinking, rising or shifting,” and “Settling, cracking or expansion of foundations,” among others. The insurer relied on Hernandez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 306 So. 3d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), where summary judgment for the insurer was affirmed. The panel contrasted the expert evidence: in Hernandez, the insurer’s engineer said blasting vibrations “led to the house shifting.” Here, the insured’s expert said the damage came from vibration alone, “without displacement of the earth.”

The court aligned the case with Tower Hill Prime Insurance Co. v. Bermudez, 388 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023), and Izquierdo v. Universal Insurance Co. of North America, 429 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026). Quoting Izquierdo, it explained that if a jury finds the cracking came from shock waves without earth movement, “the subject earth movement exclusion will not apply.” With conflicting experts, the jury decided.

2. A trial ruling limiting vibration evidence did not require reversal. The insurer argued an order in limine blocked its exclusion defense. The panel said this “overstates the impact of the court’s ruling,” noting that the insurer’s own trial expert agreed vibration occurred but testified that “vibration did not cause this damage,” and that no excluded evidence was identified. Even if the ruling was overbroad, the court found no prejudice, restating that “an error is harmless when there is no reasonable possibility it contributed to the verdict.”

3. Summary judgment against the post-loss-duty defenses was upheld. Homeowners Choice pleaded that Ms. Moise failed to timely report the loss, protect the property, and provide records. The trial court granted summary judgment against those defenses, and the Third District affirmed, quoting Goldberg v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 302 So. 3d 919, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020): “[a]n insurer’s repudiation of coverage waives the insurer’s right to insist upon the insured’s compliance with policy conditions, such as filing a proof of loss.” The denial letter called itself a “declination of coverage” and also said documents were still outstanding, with boilerplate reserving rights. The panel wrote that this language “was likely not sufficient to avoid a finding of waiver for denying the claim.”

4. A declaratory judgment complaint can still produce money damages. Although the operative complaint was styled as a declaratory judgment action, it sought “damages attributable to the Loss, if covered.” Citing section 86.061, Florida Statutes, and the rule that “[a] money judgment may be obtained for damages sought as incidental or supplemental relief pursuant to a declaratory decree,” the court upheld the $240,000 award and prejudgment interest.

What This Means If You Have a Similar Property Claim

As this case shows, insurers may invoke earth movement exclusions against cracking blamed on nearby construction or blasting. Moise is a Third District decision tied to its own policy language and evidence, so it does not decide any other claim. Still, it suggests several practical points:

• Causation wording matters. The difference between Hernandez and Moise came down to what the engineers said: vibration that shifted the house versus vibration “without displacement of the earth.” An engineer’s precise findings can affect whether the exclusion applies.
• Document the event. Ms. Moise’s testimony about the vibrations and the timing of the damage was part of the record. Photos, dates, and notes about nearby work can matter years later.
• Read the denial letter closely. Florida appellate courts have held that an insurer’s repudiation of coverage can waive defenses based on post-loss conditions, and the Third District indicated that reservation-of-rights boilerplate was likely not enough to avoid that here. Whether that applies depends on the letter and the facts.
• Newer claims may differ. This 2014 loss took until 2026 to resolve on appeal, and the opinion does not address Florida’s later property insurance statute changes.

If your Florida property insurer denied a claim for cracking or structural damage, you can learn more on our denied insurance claim guide, browse other rulings on our Case Law & Industry Insights page, or request a free case evaluation. This article is general information, not legal advice.