PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

YAMIRKA CASTRO ALMORA, ET AL.,

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 29, 2026.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D25-1573

Lower Tribunal No. 21-15580-CA-01

People's Trust Insurance Company, Appellant,

vs.

Yamirka Castro Almora, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.

Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Brandon J. Tyler and David C. Borucke (Tampa), for appellant.

Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula, William D. Mueller and Elaine D. Walter, for appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Guyton, 388 So. 3d 50, 51-52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“While we apply de novo review to these rulings, in reviewing the trial court's denial of the County's motion for directed verdict (and motion for judgment in accordance with its earlier motion for directed verdict) ‘[a]n appellate court must evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, drawing every reasonable inference flowing from the evidence in the nonmoving party's favor,' and '[i]f there is conflicting evidence or if different reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence, then the issue is factual and should be submitted to the jury for resolution.” (citations modified)); L.D.G. v. State, 960 So. 2d 767, 767-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding that testimony about money actually paid constitutes competent substantial evidence); Weitzer Oak Park Est., Ltd. v. Petto, 573 So. 2d 990, 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding that owner testimony regarding expenditures related to property constitutes competent evidence sufficient to support a verdict without documentary corroboration); Greenaker v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 434 So. 3d 526, 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 2026) (emphasis in original) (“[T]he term [replacement cost value] is used to communicate the objective of replacing what the insured once had—the full value of the insured's loss as a result of the destructive event as opposed to a reduced value that accounts for depreciation."); § 627.7011(3)(a), Fla. Stat.

(2020) ("[T]he insurer must initially pay at least the actual cash value of the insured loss . . . . The insurer shall pay any remaining amounts necessary to perform such repairs as work is performed and expenses are incurred."); Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212, 214-15 (Fla. 1985) (holding that Florida follows the “loss theory” of prejudgment interest, where prejudgment interest is calculated to make the plaintiff whole from the date of loss, not to punish the defendant or adjust for inflation); Capitol Env’t Servs., Inc. v. Earth Tech, Inc., 25 So. 3d 593, 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ("Damages can become fixed on different dates for purposes of an award of prejudgment interest."); Whitman v. Castlewood, Int'l Corp., 383 So. 2d 618, 619 (Fla. 1980) (holding that “where there is no proper objection to the use of a general verdict, reversal is improper where no error is found as to one of two issues submitted to the jury on the basis that the appellant is unable to establish that he has been prejudiced”); Papcun v. Piggy Bag Disc. Souvenirs, Food & Gas Corp., 472 So. 2d 880, 881 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (holding that "a failure to object to a verdict form regarding defects not of a constitutional or fundamental character constitutes a waiver of such defects").