What happens when construction work on a neighbouring property damages a home, but the homeowner’s insurance company refuses to pay for repairs? For Sandra Moise of Miami, Florida, the dispute centred on whether vibrations from demolition work could be excluded under policy provisions covering earth movement and settlement. The damage occurred in March 2014, and the insurer denied her claim that June, setting off a legal battle that continued for years.On October 28, 2026, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal upheld the judgment in Moise’s favour against Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company. In its opinion available on Justia, the court concluded that the insurer had not established grounds to overturn the jury’s decision. The ruling affirmed a $240,000 damages award, along with prejudgment interest, and addressed the distinction between damage caused by vibrations and damage resulting from actual earth movement.
Demolition vibrations damaged the home
According to the court’s opinion, Moise’s home was insured under a policy that took effect on May 8, 2013. On March 1, 2014, demolition activity at a neighbouring property allegedly caused vibrations that damaged the house’s floors, walls and ceiling. Moise said she was inside the property during the demolition and felt the shaking. She also noticed picture frames moving and later discovered damage to the house. Her initial complaint, filed on August 27, 2014, alleged that the insurer had failed to cover the loss.Homeowners Choice arranged an inspection by Bracken Engineering, which examined the property on May 6, 2014. The insurer’s field adjuster inspected it later that month. The company subsequently denied the claim on June 6, 2014, concluding that the damage resulted from material shrinkage or settlement and fell within the policy’s exclusions.
Insurer cited earth movement and settlement exclusions
The insurance policy covered direct physical losses occurring during the policy period, subject to its exclusions. These included damage caused by earthquakes, landslides, sinking or shifting earth, soil expansion or contraction, and the settling or cracking of foundations. The company argued that the damage to Moise’s home fell within these provisions. It maintained that the cracks and other problems were attributable to settlement or pre-existing conditions rather than vibrations alone.Moise’s expert, Alfredo Brizuela, offered a different explanation. His report stated that the impact of heavy construction equipment at the adjacent property generated vibrations that travelled through the limestone subsoil and affected the home’s foundation structure. In an affidavit, Brizuela clarified that the damage resulted from vibrations, rather than actual displacement or movement of the earth. This distinction became central to the dispute because the court distinguished damage caused by vibrations without actual earth movement from damage resulting from earth movement or settlement covered by the policy’s exclusions.The trial court denied the insurer’s request for summary judgment on the exclusion issue in December 2019. It subsequently restricted certain arguments about whether vibration itself constituted an excluded cause of loss. The case went to a jury trial in November 2022, and the jury found that the damage was not excluded under the policy. Final judgment was entered on May 1, 2024.
Appeals court explains why the exclusions did not apply automatically
Homeowners Choice challenged the outcome, arguing that the trial court had wrongly interpreted the policy and restricted evidence relevant to its defence. The Third District Court of Appeal rejected the insurer’s arguments. The appellate court considered earlier decisions involving similar insurance provisions. It distinguished cases in which damage resulted from actual earth movement from those in which vibrations or shock waves caused damage without accompanying movement of the earth.The judges noted that the parties had presented conflicting expert evidence. While the insurer’s expert attributed the damage to settlement or other conditions, Moise’s expert maintained that vibrations alone had caused it. That conflict did not justify overturning the jury’s verdict. The court also found no demonstrated prejudice from the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. The insurer had been able to present its position that settlement, rather than vibration, caused the damage. Its expert testified at trial that, although vibrations had occurred, they had not caused the damage. The appeals court therefore found no basis to reverse the judgment on these grounds.
Court upholds $240,000 award and prejudgment interest
The insurer also challenged the monetary award, arguing that the operative complaint was framed as a declaratory judgment action and that the trial court had improperly awarded damages. The appellate court disagreed. It noted that Moise’s complaint had also sought monetary damages attributable to the loss if the damage was covered. Florida law permits further relief based on a declaratory judgment when necessary or appropriate.The jury had determined damages of $240,000, and the trial court had added prejudgment interest. The appeals court affirmed this part of the judgment as well, upholding the orders under review in all respects. The ruling does not mean that every property damage claim involving construction vibrations must be covered by insurance. Instead, it highlights the importance of establishing the actual cause of damage and examining the precise wording of policy exclusions. In Moise’s case, the court upheld the jury’s determination that the damage was not excluded under the policy, affirming the judgment in her favour.