Case Law Update: Izquierdo v. Universal Insurance — Earth Movement Exclusion Reversed in First-Party Property Claim

Introduction

In Mario Izquierdo v. Universal Insurance Company of North America, No. 3D24-1956 (Fla. 3d DCA, March 4, 2026), the Third District Court of Appeal reversed a final summary judgment that had been entered in favor of Universal Insurance. The trial court had found that cracking damage to the policyholder's home was excluded under the policy's earth movement and existing damage exclusions. The Third DCA disagreed, finding that genuine disputes of material fact remained, and remanded for further proceedings.

Full Court Opinion: Read Izquierdo v. Universal Insurance on CourtListener

This decision is significant for public adjusters because it reinforces that carriers cannot simply invoke broad exclusions at summary judgment without meeting their evidentiary burden — particularly in all-risk policy disputes.

Background and Facts

Mario Izquierdo held a Homeowner's HO-3 Special Form Policy with Universal Insurance — an all-risk policy that generally covered all losses unless specifically excluded. Izquierdo's home sustained cracking damage, and he filed a first-party insurance claim.

Universal denied the claim, asserting that the damage fell under the policy's earth movement exclusion and the existing damage exclusion. Izquierdo filed suit, and Universal moved for summary judgment. The trial court in Miami-Dade County granted the motion, finding as a matter of law that the exclusions applied.

The Court's Decision

The Third DCA applied a de novo standard of review and carefully analyzed the burden-shifting framework applicable to all-risk policies. The court explained:

• Izquierdo bore the initial burden of proving only that his home suffered a loss while the policy was in effect.
• The burden then shifted to Universal to show that the loss fell under a specific policy exclusion.
• If Universal presented competent evidence of an exclusion, the burden shifted back to Izquierdo to show a genuine dispute of material fact as to the exclusion's application.

The court found that genuine disputes of material fact remained as to whether the earth movement and existing damage exclusions actually applied to Izquierdo's cracking damage. The summary judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Key Takeaways for Public Adjusters

• All-risk policies favor the policyholder at the outset. Under Florida law, the insured only needs to prove a loss occurred during the policy period. The carrier bears the burden of proving an exclusion applies. PAs should remind policyholders and their counsel of this burden-shifting framework.
• Earth movement exclusions are not automatic denials. Carriers frequently cite earth movement exclusions for foundation cracking and structural damage. This ruling confirms that courts will scrutinize whether the carrier has actually proven the exclusion applies — not just alleged it.
• Existing damage exclusions require carrier proof. Universal also invoked an existing damage exclusion, but the court found factual disputes remained. PAs should document pre-loss and post-loss conditions thoroughly to counter these carrier defenses.
• Summary judgment is reversible. Even when a trial court rules for the carrier, appellate courts will reverse if the evidence doesn't support the exclusion as a matter of law. Don't assume a claim is dead after an adverse ruling.

How This Affects Your Practice

If you're handling a property claim where the carrier denies based on earth movement, subsidence, or existing damage exclusions, this case provides strong support for challenging those denials. The Third DCA's decision makes clear that these exclusions require the carrier to present competent evidence — not just boilerplate denial language.

For PAs working in Miami-Dade and South Florida, document the timeline of damage carefully, obtain independent engineering reports where possible, and ensure that your policyholder's claim file demonstrates that the loss occurred during the policy period. This evidence is what shifts the burden back to the carrier.

Practical Advice for Similar Cases

If the carrier invokes earth movement or existing damage exclusions:

• Obtain an independent geotechnical report to determine whether damage is from earth movement or covered causes like plumbing leaks.
• Challenge existing damage defenses with pre-loss inspection reports, prior claim history, and pre-loss photos.
• Remember the burden-shifting framework. Under all-risk policies, the carrier must prove the exclusion applies.
• Don't accept exclusion-based denials at face value. This case shows appellate courts reverse when factual disputes exist.

Conclusion

Need help with a similar claim? Submit your policy for a free review by our property damage attorneys, or call us at 833-657-4812.