UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

VILMA MARQUEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NATIONAL FIRE AND MARINE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. 

______________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant National Fire & Marine Insurance 

Company’s (“Defendant”) Omnibus Post-Trial Motions on Liability and Damages, ECF No. [152] 

(“Omnibus Post Trial Motion”). Plaintiff filed a Response, ECF No. [170] (“Response”), to which

Defendant filed a Reply, ECF No. [173] (“Reply”). The Motions were referred to United States 

Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis for a Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [155]. On August 

8, 2022, Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendations, ECF No. [179] (“R&R”), 

recommending that Defendant’s Omnibus Post-Trial Motion be denied. See id. at 11. The R&R 

advised the parties that objections to the R&R must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the R&R. 

Id. Defendant thereafter timely filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, ECF No. [180] 

(“Objections”), and Plaintiff timely filed a Response in Opposition to the Objections. ECF No. 

[183] (“Response to Objections”). 

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R, the Objections, and the record in 

this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 1 of 12
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

2

1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

overrules Defendant’s Objections and adopts the R&R.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Vilma Marquez brought a claim for insurance benefits owed pursuant to her 

homeowner’s insurance policy (“Policy”). ECF No. [1-1] at 3-8, 131-136. Defendant issued the

Policy to Plaintiff and her husband for their property located in Miami, Florida (“Property”). See 

ECF No. [133-1]. During the Policy period, the Property sustained a covered loss. See ECF No.

[1-1] at 3-8, 131-136. Plaintiff thereafter filed suit, alleging that Defendant breached the Policy by 

failing or refusing to properly adjust and pay her claim. ECF No. [1-1] at 3-8; 131-136. Defendant 

asserted that Plaintiff was not entitled to recover under the Policy for a number of reasons, 

including that Plaintiff had not made any repairs to the Property and therefore did not incur the 

costs she sought to recover, as required by the Policy language. See id. at 151-156. 

During the course of the proceedings, Plaintiff retained a cause, origin, and damage expert, 

Alfredo Brizuela (“Brizuela”), who determined that the damage to Plaintiff’s Property resulted 

from strong wind forces, a full roof replacement was necessary, and the cost to replace was

$136,484.46. ECF No. [133-9]. Defendant moved to strike certain testimony of Brizuela, ECF No. 

[29] (“Motion to Strike”), arguing that Brizuela’s testimony did not meet the Daubert criteria. See

id; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993). Defendant argued 

that because Brizuela relied primarily on a CoreLogic report, which he himself did not create and 

could not explain the methodology behind, his testimony should be stricken. ECF No. [29] at 7-8. 

Defendant also moved for summary judgment raising, among other arguments, a deficiency in

Plaintiff’s damages claim which relied on Brizuela’s estimate for the cost to repair Plaintiff’s 

Property. ECF No. [32] at 9. Defendant argued that since Brizuela’s estimate contained the cost to 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 2 of 12
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

3

fully replace Plaintiff’s roof, and not an actual cash value estimate, it was not appropriate as

Plaintiff was not entitled to any replacement cost since the repairs to the Property had not been 

performed. Id.

The Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Strike, ECF No. [57], and thereafter denied in 

part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [71]. In the Order on Summary 

Judgment, the Court agreed with Defendant that Plaintiff was unable to seek replacement costs as 

no repairs were performed. Hoewever, under Florida law, the replacement cost was still relevant 

to the jury’s ultimate determination on damages, as the actual cash value is derived from the full 

replacement cost. Id. at 13. Because Brizuela’s estimate supported Plaintiff’s theory that the actual 

cash value of the loss exceeded what Defendant paid, that portion of the Defendant’s Motion was 

denied. Id. at 14.

The case proceeded to trial and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff for 

$136,484.46. ECF No. [135]. The Court thereupon entered a Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff. 

ECF No. [137]. Defendant filed its Omnibus Post Trial Motion, in which Defendant renewed its 

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) and moved to alter or 

amend the judgment or for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a). ECF No. [152]. As stated, 

the Court referred Defendant’s Omnibus Post Trial Motion to Magistrate Judge Louis for a R&R.

ECF No. [155]. 

On August 8, 2022, Magistrate Judge Louis issued her R&R in which she recommended

that Defendant’s Omnibus Post Trial Motion be denied. ECF No. [179]. Defendant filed its 

Objections to the R&R, in which it asserts that the R&R “relie[d] on incorrect statements of the 

record evidence” and “impermissibly defer[ed] to the jury’s verdict” which rested on “a specific 

expert opinion derived from a methodology that has not been established as reliable” and where

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 3 of 12
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

4

the jury failed to heed the Court’s instructions on damages. ECF No. [180]. Plaintiff responds that

Defendant simply re-raises in its Objections the same arguments that have already been rejected 

by this Court and Magistrate Judge Louis in the R&R. ECF No. [183].

II. LEGAL STANDARD

a. Objections to Magistrate Judge’s R&R

“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party 

must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings 

and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. 

Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 

(11th Cir. 1989)) (alterations omitted). The objections must also present “supporting legal 

authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). The portions of the report and recommendation to which 

an objection is made are reviewed de novo only if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings 

that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If a party fails to object to any portion of the magistrate judge’s 

report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (quoting Johnson 

v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)); see also Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. 

WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001). “It is improper for 

an objecting party to ... submit [ ] papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing 

of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. 

Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple’ when they file objections to an 

R & R.” Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-23641-CIV, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 

21, 2012) (quoting Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 4 of 12
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

5

382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)). A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report 

and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

b. Judgment as a Matter of Law

“[A] court should render judgment as a matter of law when there is no legally sufficient 

evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue. . . . We review all of the 

evidence in the record and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” 

Gowski v. Peake, 682 F.3d 1299, 1310 (11th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). “[I]f there is substantial 

conflict in the evidence, such that reasonable and fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial 

judgment might reach different conclusions, the motion must be denied.” Id. at 1311 (citing 

Christopher v. Florida, 449 F.3d 1360, 1364 (11th Cir. 2006)). Simply put, “judgment as a matter 

of law is appropriate only if the facts and inferences point so overwhelmingly in favor of one party 

that reasonable people could not arrive at a contrary verdict.” Brown v. Alabama Dep’t of Transp., 

597 F.3d 1160, 1173 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

c. New Jury Trial

Among other relief, a court may grant a new jury trial under Rule 59 “for any reason for 

which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(a). For instance, a party may assert that “the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, that 

the damages are excessive, or that, for other reasons, the trial was not fair to the party moving.” 

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 251 (1940). Thus, a motion for new trial should 

be granted “when the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or will result in a 

miscarriage of justice, even though there may be substantial evidence which would prevent the 

direction of a verdict.” Brown v. Sheriff of Orange Cnty., Fla., 604 F. App'x 915 (11th Cir. 2015) 

(per curiam) (quoting Lipphardt, 267 F.3d at 1186); see Tucker v. Hous. Auth. of Birmingham 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 5 of 12
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

6

Dist., 229 F. App'x 820, 826 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[N]ew trials should not be granted on evidentiary 

grounds unless, at a minimum, the verdict is against the great – not merely the greater – weight of 

the evidence.”); Dudley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 166 F.3d 1317, 1320 n.3 (11th Cir. 1999) 

(holding that, because a “less stringent standard applies to a motion for a new trial than to a motion 

for a judgment as a matter of law,” the failure to meet the Rule 59 standard is fatal to the Rule 

50(b) standard) (citation omitted).

d. Alter or Amend Judgment

A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59 must be filed no later than 28 days 

after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). However, the United States Supreme Court and 

the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit have made it clear that Rule 59(e) “may not be used 

to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior 

to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008); see also 

Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, 771 F.3d 713, 746 (11th Cir. 2014); In re 

Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999) (recognizing that Rule 59(e) motions may only be 

granted based on “newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.”); Arthur v. King, 

500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (“A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old 

matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of 

judgment.”). “A motion for relief under Rule 59(e) is a matter committed to the discretion of the 

district court.” Bland v. Alabama, No. 2:15-CV-0029-MHH-JEO, 2016 WL 10930989, at *1 (N.D. 

Ala. Oct. 6, 2016) (citing Stansell, 771 F.3d at 746).

III. ANALYSIS

Defendant raises two objections to the R&R: (1) The R&R rests on the wrongful 

assumption that Plaintiff’s expert, Brizuela, relied on multiple sources to reach his opinion as to 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 6 of 12
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

7

causation; and (2) the R&R impermissibly deferred to the jury’s verdict where the jury undeniably 

awarded the replacement cost of a new roof in violation of the Court’s instructions that damages 

could be awarded only for actual damages. The Court addresses each of Defendant’s objections.

a. Expert Testimony

Defendant first argues that the R&R impermissibly assumed that Brizuela relied on sources 

other than the CoreLogic report in reaching his opinions. ECF No. [180] at 1-2. Defendant asserts 

that none of the other evidence contemplated by Brizuela could have allowed him to arrive at his 

key conclusion, that wind speeds were 62 miles per hour at Plaintiff’s Property on May 6, 2019. 

Id. at 3. Defendant further asserts that it was prejudiced by Brizuela’s impermissibly admitted 

expert testimony. Id. Plaintiff responds that the R&R already considered this argument; 

Defendant’s original Omnibus Post Trial Motion raised the argument about Brizuela’s testimony 

that is simply rehashed in Defendant’s Objections. ECF No. [183] at 2 n. 1, 5. Plaintiff further 

contends that the R&R correctly determined that Brizuela’s expert testimony did not warrant a 

directed verdict or new trial, as his methodology was reliable and the CoreLogic report was only 

one of multiple sources Brizuela used to draw his conclusions. ECF No. [183] at 8. The Court 

agrees with Plaintiff and adopts the findings in the R&R.

Defendant’s first objection to the R&R puts forth the same argument Defendant asserted 

in its Motion to Strike as well as in its Omnibus Post Trial Motion. See ECF No. [29]; ECF No. 

[152]; ECF No. [180]. In each filings Defendant argued that Brizuela relied on the CoreLogic 

report which he did not generate and cannot explain the methodology behind. Since that was the 

only evidence to support his opinion that wind speeds were high enough on May 6, 2019 to cause 

the reported damage to Plaintiff’s Property, Brizuela’s opinion is not reliable. See id. 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 7 of 12
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

8

The R&R considered and fairly addressed Defendant’s argument that Brizuela’s testimony 

was unreliable as it lacked a scientifically reliable methodology for establishing wind speeds. See 

ECF No. [179] at 3-5, 7, 10. The R&R specifically found that Brizuela’s opinion was “informed 

not only by CoreLogic data but additionally considered sources such as thermal, historical, and 

aerial photographs of the damage including images captured by drones; a physical inspection of 

the roof to determine the extent of damage to the roof membrane, and information from the 

National Weather Service.” Id. at 4-5. The R&R also highlighted that Brizuela testified that 

CoreLogic is accepted in the forensic engineering industry and scientific community, that he 

employed engineering and construction principles, his in-depth knowledge of construction 

materials and damages along with his over forty years of experience to generate his opinions. Id. 

at 5. The R&R specifically found that “Brizuela also stated that his opinion would have been the 

same regardless of the CoreLogic report.” Id. Judge Louis found that upon a thorough review of 

the evidence presented at trial and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, as the 

non-moving party, there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to grant Defendant’s Motion for 

Judgment as a Matter of Law. Id. at 5. Furthermore, Judge Louis concluded that the jury’s verdict 

was not against the clear or great weight of the evidence and recommended that Defendant’s 

Motion for a New Trial be denied. Id. at 10-11.

The Court points out that Defendant’s objection is improper, as it simply rehashes an 

argument included in its original briefing. Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a review of the 

record, transcripts, and all exhibits admitted at trial. Contrary to Defendant’s assertion that 

Brizuela’s testimony was premised entirely on a CoreLogic report, Brizuela testified both at the 

July 7, 2021 hearing and at trial that his conclusions were premised on multiple sources. See ECF 

No. [59] at 3-15; ECF No. [164] at 6-17, 145-165. At trial, Brizuela testified that he relied on the 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 8 of 12
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

9

CoreLogic report and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data collected at the 

Kendall-Tamiami Executive Airport and Miami International Airport to calculate the relevant

wind forces. ECF No. [164] at 11-12, 146. Brizuela explained that it is industry custom for 

engineers to rely on those data sources. Id. In addition, Brizuela photographed Plaintiff’s Property 

using a thermal camera, photographed it again with a drone, and conducted two physical 

inspections. ECF No. [163] at 207; ECF No. [164] at 13, 18. On cross-examination, Defendant 

questioned Brizuela at length on his lack of knowledge about the proprietary method used to 

generate the CoreLogic report in the presence of the jury. ECF No. [164] at 158-162. In closing 

argument at trial, Defendant further reiterated that Brizuela relied on the CoreLogic report without 

having created it himself or knowledge of the methodology used to create it. ECF No. [166] at 

129. At trial, the jury also heard from defense expert Lee Bascome who presented an opinion 

contrary to that offered by Brizuela. See ECF No. [165] at 242-260.

The Court has considered the evidence presented and finds that the verdict was well

supported. Even considering the competing theories presented by Plaintiff and Defendant, where 

there is a substantial conflict in the evidence such that fair-minded persons might reach different 

conclusions, judgment as a matter of law is not appropriate. Gowski v. Peake, 682 F.3d 1310. The 

verdict is similarly not contrary to the clear or great weight of the evidence. See Hewitt v. B.F. 

Goodrich Co., 732 F.2d 1554, 1556 (11th Cir. 1984). The Court therefore adopts the finding of the 

R&R and overrules the objection.

b. Deference to the Jury Verdict

Defendant’s second objection is that the R&R impermissibly deferred to the jury’s verdict 

where the jury undeniably awarded the replacement cost of a new roof in violation of the Court’s 

instructions that damages only could be awarded for direct physical damage to the roof. ECF No. 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 9 of 12
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

10

[180] at 4. Plaintiff responds that the jury heard testimony regarding the extensive damage to the 

roof and other areas of the home and estimates from multiple experts on the replacement cost of 

the roof, giving the jury a reasonable basis for its verdict. ECF No. [183] at 11-12. 

The R&R found that the jury had the right to weigh the testimony of Brizuela, Defendant’s 

expert, other testimony, and the entire record evidence in their determination of the actual cash 

value of the physical direct damage to Plaintiff’s Property; and the verdict reflects the jury’s factual 

findings with respect to damages. ECF No. [179] at 8. Accordingly, the R&R recommends the 

verdict and final judgment stand. Id. at 9.

As set forth in its Omnibus Post Trial Motion, Defendant relies on Alphamed Pharm. v. 

Arriva Pharm., 432 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1358 (S.D. Fla. 2006) to support its contention that the R&R 

afforded undue deference to the jury verdict. ECF No. [180] at 5-6. There, the Court found that 

the Plaintiff failed to “prove the fact of damage—i.e., that it would have earned a profit (of any 

amount) but for [the defendant’s] conduct” and therefore “there [wa]s no reasonable basis for the 

jury's compensatory damage award in th[at] matter.” Alphamed Pharm. at 1352.

Upon review, the authority Defendant cites is inapposite and does not instruct that the R&R 

applied the incorrect standard of deference to the jury’s award. In Alphamed Pharm., the Court 

articulated that while the Court affords deference to a jury’s findings, a jury verdict is not entitled 

to rely on unreasonable inferences. Id. at 1333. This is consistent with the standard articulated in

the R&R. See ECF No. [179] at 5-6. The jury is, of course, the traditional finder of the facts, and 

its verdict must stand unless [the losing party] can show that there is no substantial evidence to 

support it, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to [the prevailing party], and 

clothing it with all reasonable inferences to be deduced therefrom.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.

Falgoust, 386 F. 2d 248, 253 (5th Cir. 1967). “It is not the function of the [district] court, however, 

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 10 of 12
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

11

to weigh the conflicting evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses and arrive at a conclusion 

opposite from the one reached by the jury, where there is a reasonable basis in the record for the 

jury’s verdict.” Id. 

At trial, Defendant objected to the admission of Brizuela’s estimate of the cost to repair the 

damage to Plaintiff’s property on hearsay grounds and argued that the lack of depreciation 

calculations in Brizuela’s estimate did not provide the actual cash value of the damage and 

therefore was unduly prejudicial. ECF No. [164] at 57-63. That objection was overruled. Id. The 

jury was presented with multiple sources of testimony on damages including Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s 

expert Brizuela, and Defendant’s own experts detailing the actual damage to Plaintiff’s roof and 

the interior of Plaintiff’s home. See ECF No. [163]; ECF No. [164]; ECF No. [165]. Moreover, the 

jury was also presented with pictorial evidence of that damage. See ECF No. [163]; ECF No. [133]. 

In light of the evidence presented, there was a reasonable basis for this jury’s compensatory 

damage award. 

Furthermore, the Court properly instructed the jury to limit the recoverable damages to the 

actual cash value of those items that suffered direct and physical damage, not the replacement cost 

value. ECF No. [166] at 95-96; 158-159.1 The Court presumes the jury followed its instructions. 

See Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 73 (1979) (“A crucial assumption underlying that system [of 

trial by jury] is that juries will follow the instructions given them by the trial judge. Were this not 

so, it would be pointless for a trial court to instruct a jury.”); id. at 75 n.7 (“The ‘rule’—indeed, 

the premise upon which the system of jury trials functions under the American judicial system—

1 The relevant portion of the trial transcript reads: “The parties agree that the appropriate measure of damages in this 

matter is actual cash value. To calculate the amount of actual cash value, you must determine the amount of the 

replacement cost value. Replacement cost value is the replacement cost of the part of the building damaged with 

material of like kind and quality and for like use. Then, you must determine the appropriate amount of recoverable 

depreciation that applies to the replacement cost value. Your calculation for actual cash value is the difference 

between those two figures.” ECF No. [166] at 95-96.

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 11 of 12
Case No. 20-cv-22791-BLOOM/Louis

12

is that juries can be trusted to follow the trial court's instructions.”). The record clearly 

demonstrates that the jurors understood they were to award the actual cash value rather than the 

replacement cost. Tellingly, during the jury deliberations, the jurors submitted a note asking 

“[b]ased on the estimates provided two years ago, are we able to consider inflationary percentage 

increases due current costs, actual costs?” ECF No. [166] at 173. While Defendant disagrees with 

the inferences drawn by the jury, it was not unreasonable for the jury to draw its inferences, or to

award plaintiff $136,484.46, in damages. The Defendant’s objection is therefore overruled.

IV. CONCLUSION

Upon a comprehensive de novo review, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Louis’ R&R to 

be well reasoned and correct on all matters.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The R&R, ECF No. [179], is ADOPTED.

2. Defendant’s Objections, ECF No. [180], are OVERRULED.

3. Defendant’s Omnibus Post Trial Motion, ECF No. [152], is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on October 11, 2022

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-22791-BB Document 184 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2022 Page 12 of 12