.

Workers' Compensation Defense

The Workers' Compensation Practice Group is devoted to the exclusive representation of employers, insurance carriers and third party administrators. While many of the attorneys in this group have a background in civil litigation, they all focus their practice solely on the defense of workers' compensation matters. Our attorneys are well versed in the intricacies of this nuanced practice, and due to their constant presence in the courts where they practice, they are well respected by the judges before whom they regularly appear and the attorneys against whom they compete.

Our attorneys are involved in all aspects of workers' compensation, from the infancy of a claim through practice in the appellate courts. We are vigorous litigators who also recognize that litigation is not always the primary focus of an employer's successful workers' compensation program. Significant monetary savings can be achieved through the effective management of workers' compensation plans and innovative return-to-work programs, and our attorneys are on the cutting edge of case law developments to assist in the design, implementation and continuation of such programs. We also provide risk management services and can help reduce costs by becoming involved during the pre-litigation phase. In addition, the work of the attorneys in the firm's highly regarded Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group includes front-line responsibility for conducting necessary legal research, writing required briefs, and preparing and presenting oral arguments in post-trial motions and appeals.

As workers' compensation has become increasingly sophisticated, we have expanded our scope of practice to support clients in areas that have become tangential to the workers' compensation practice.

Workers' Compensation Fraud
Fraud contributes significantly to the cost of doing business and negatively impacts employers, insurance carriers and third party administrators. We can facilitate the filing of a fraud claim through local government agencies and review all cases for civil remedies to help our clients recoup some of the monies expended due to fraudulent cases.

Unemployment Compensation
It has become increasingly apparent that there is a cross-over between workers’ compensation and unemployment cases. While the two areas of law are mutually exclusive by way of collateral estoppel, it is clear the same issues are simultaneously being litigated in both forums. By using the unemployment and workers’ compensation forums to bolster defenses in both claims, we achieve successful results for our clients. Our unemployment practice is full service, with our attorneys handling claims at all levels of the courts.

Federal Black Lung
Our attorneys defend claims brought before the United States Department of Labor (USDOL) by coal miners and widows seeking benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. We are intimately familiar with the lengthy litigation process involved with Federal Black Lung claims originating at the USDOL and proceeding to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Our attorneys have also handled numerous appeals to the Benefits Review Board and the United States Court of Appeals. We are also well versed in defending pulmonary disease cases under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act that often go hand-in-hand with claims brought under the Black Lung Benefits Act.

Hearing Loss Claims
Injuries resulting from exposure to hazardous occupational noise comprise one of the largest group of specific loss/permanency claims in the tri-state area. In addition to becoming more commonplace, these claims have also become more technologically complex. Each attorney assigned to hearing loss claims are familiar with the science behind acoustical trauma, including the inner workings of audiometric testing, leading to effective cross examination of key witnesses. Further, our attorneys seek to expose pre-existing, non-work related hearing loss and differentiate it from compensable loss. We are one of the leading defense firms in protecting successor-in-interest employers that are unexpectedly plagued with hearing loss claims stemming from employees’ hazardous noise exposure with previous employers. In Pennsylvania, we were pioneers in the effort to change the standard of monetary award in hearing loss cases from an all-encompassing specific loss award to that of a percentage award based on actual work-related hearing loss. Our attorneys are also well versed in the practical implications of a working hearing conservation program and the benefits such a program can have on an employer’s bottom line.

Medicare Compliance
Our Medicare team has the comprehensive knowledge necessary to effectively handle set-asides in all parts of the country. We are well-versed in federal and state liability systems, as well as the workers’ compensation systems. In addition to protecting Medicare’s interests through set-asides, we also alert our clients to the involvement of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reporting Law. We offer cogent advice regarding case settlements, including the use of structured settlements and other strategies to bring cases to conclusion. We are willing and able to work with lawyers throughout the country to provide the support they need regarding Medicare issues.

Coverage
Occasionally, carriers are drawn into workers' compensation litigation notwithstanding a dispute between the employer and the carrier as to viable workers' compensation coverage. Our attorneys have experience in navigating the potential pitfalls that can arise during litigation due to the conflicting interests of the employer and the carrier, and have successfully obtained dismissals of carriers as parties from these unwarranted claims.

Interplay Between the ADA, FMLA and Workers' Compensation
Our attorneys have expansive knowledge of the ADA, FMLA and workers’ compensation statutes that all impact termination of employment. We fully understand the complex relationship between these statutes and provide our clients the necessary guidance during the pre-litigation phase. We also advise our clients on the potential impact of a wrongful termination and provide detailed recommendations to facilitate a lawful employment termination. Our legal approach focuses on mitigating future exposure by providing practical advice to avoid pitfalls when navigating the decision to terminate an employee. We work with our clients to evaluate and address all legal issues involving the ADA, FMLA and workers’ compensation as it pertains to avoiding a wrongful termination claim.

Medical Marijuana
There has been a wave of medical marijuana legalization throughout the country in recent years. It is now legal in more than 38 states, including ones where we defend clients in workers’ compensation matters. Our attorneys are knowledgeable about the medical marijuana laws in these specific states and can provide sound advice on the many issues that arise in the workers’ compensation context. Some of these issues include insurance coverage, payment, reasonableness and necessity of medical cannabis treatment for work injuries, work injuries that qualify as conditions treatable with medical cannabis, and workplace safety concerns. We are also committed to tracking important trends in medical marijuana law nationally to keep our clients well informed of significant developments and the impact they may have on the practice of workers’ compensation.

Defense Base Act
The Defense Base Act (DBA) extends protections to civilian employees working outside the United States on U.S. military bases or under contracts with the U.S. government involving public works or national defense. It provides comprehensive medical, disability, and death benefits to covered employees who suffer injuries or fatalities arising out of and in the course of employment. Our attorneys have a deep understanding of the complex regulations and procedures governing DBA claims. We deliver strategic, results-driven representation at every stage of the process—from claim investigation and mediation through formal hearings and appeals before the Benefits Review Board, U.S. District Courts, and U.S. Courts of Appeals. Our goal is to protect our clients’ interests while minimizing the risks and financial exposure associated with Defense Base Act claims.

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation
We understand the legal, operational, and financial challenges employers, insurers, and maritime companies face when responding to Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act claims. Our attorneys bring extensive experience litigating before the U.S. Department of Labor, the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the Benefits Review Board, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Working closely with clients, investigators, and medical and vocational experts, we develop disciplined, evidence-driven defenses tailored to the facts of each case. We provide proactive, results-focused representation at every stage of the process—from initial claim evaluation through trial and appeal.

PENNSYLVANIA

Fee Reviews
Fee reviews have become an increasingly important component of workers' compensation cases in Pennsylvania. Our attorneys are very familiar with the legal issues associated with the fee review process and its interplay with active workers’ compensation litigation. By becoming involved at the onset of a fee review filing, we are better positioned to defend the interests of employers/carriers. Medical providers use fee reviews to challenge the timeliness or amount of medical payments made by employers/carriers. Providers are given two opportunities to file a timely application for fee review – (1) within 90 days of their original billing date, or (2) within 30 days after they are provided with notice of a dispute, whichever is later. The fee review process presupposes that liability has been established, and thus, provider's allegations are accepted at face value during the initial stages. As an unfortunate consequence, employers/carriers may face unjust initial Determinations. Disputing a fee review Determination requires a de novo appeal, which must be filed within 30 days of the date of the Determination. Our attorneys have extensive experience navigating the issues that then arise during fee review hearings and provide excellent guidance based on our thorough understanding of CPT codes and types of treatment. Our goal is to handle each case in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

Heart and Lung Benefits
In addition to handling traditional workers’ compensation claims, our attorneys also advise local municipalities and counties in Pennsylvania on heart and lung claims. The Heart and Lung Act provides full wage loss benefits to certain eligible municipal, county and state workers who are injured in the performance of their job duties. With a depth of experience in this area, we are well versed in the associated law and adept at defending clients facing these types of claims. Our attorneys understand the complex interplay between the Heart and Lung Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act, and will provide the necessary guidance in pre-litigation settings, address all issues to challenge entitlement to Heart and Lung benefits, and explain its impact on a workers’ compensation claim. Our approach focuses on mitigating future exposure and providing practical advice to avoid pitfalls in handling Heart and Lung Act claims. We work with our clients to evaluate and achieve reasonable resolution of both the heart and lung and worker’s compensation claims, as well as address any subrogation issues.

FLORIDA

Stop Work Orders
Stop Work Orders or Requests for Business Records are issued by the Division of Workers’ Compensation Investigators for the state of Florida. A business cannot legally operate while a Stop Work Order is in place. Failure to comply with a Stop Work Order can result in increased penalty assessments and, in some cases, criminal sanctions pursuant to Florida Statute 440.105. Our attorneys can assist business owners in navigating this difficult and complicated process, including record requests, reducing penalty assessments and filing petitions before Department of Administrative Hearings.

Insurance Premium Audits and Disputes
Disputes occasionally arise between employers and carriers after an audit takes place. Workers’ compensation rates in Florida are based upon job title and payroll, and discrepancies discovered following an audit can lead to loss of coverage, fines and assessments. We can assist employers throughout this dispute process, which can lead to improved outcomes and reduced assessments.

Results

Events

Thought Leadership

What's Hot in Workers' Comp

What's Hot in Workers' Comp - 2024 to present

December 31, 2026

Our monthly workers’ compensation publication provides legal updates and practical analysis of developments affecting employers, insurers, and claims professionals. Each issue highlights recent case law and statutory and regulatory changes to help readers stay informed, manage risk, and respond effectively to evolving workers’ compensation requirements. What's Hot in Workers' Comp, August 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, July 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, June 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, May 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, April 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, March 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, February 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, January 2026 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, December 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, November 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, October 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, September 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, August 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, July 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, June 2025 What's Hot in Workers' Comp, May 2025 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, April 2025 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, March 2025 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, February 2025 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, January 2025 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, December 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, November 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, October 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, September 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, August 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, July 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, June 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, May 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, April 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, March 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, February 2024 What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, January 2024

Defense Digest

Appellate Division Affirms Increased Permanency Award Despite Petitioner’s Refusal of Recommended Surgery

September 30, 2026

Key Points: • A refusal of recommended treatment does not automatically preclude an increased permanency award on a re-opener claim. • Objective medical evidence remains essential in re-opener claims. Petitioners must still prove a material increase in disability through objective findings, not subjective complaints. • Credibility findings carry significant weight on appeal. The Appellate Division will defer to a workers’ compensation judge’s supported factual and credibility determinations, making them difficult to overturn. • Respond promptly to requests for settlement authority to facilitate meaningful negotiations and minimize the risk of increased attorney’s fees and costs. Can a petitioner obtain an increased permanency award while refusing recommended surgery? According to the Appellate Division's recent unpublished decision in Grasso v. Monmouth County Sheriff's Department, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1029 (N.J. Super. App. Div. May 18, 2026), the answer is yes. The decision is important as respondents often cite a petitioner’s refusal of treatment as evidence that no material increase in disability has occurred. Jason Grasso, a corrections officer employed by the Monmouth County Sheriff’s Department, injured his right great toe while attempting to break up an inmate altercation in 2016. After undergoing surgery in 2019, he resolved his claim in 2021 for an award of 27.5% permanent partial disability of the right foot. Less than one year later, Grasso filed an application for review or modification, alleging increased pain and disability. Subsequent MRI imaging showed degenerative changes within the toe, and the authorized treating podiatrist recommended a fusion surgery. Grasso declined the procedure, testifying that he believed the prior surgery had worsened his condition and that he feared the proposed fusion would further impair his ability to play with his children and continue working as a corrections officer. At trial, petitioner’s orthopedic expert testified that objective MRI findings demonstrated progressive degeneration since the original award and that the condition would continue to worsen absent surgery. Respondent’s orthopedic expert acknowledged the progression of degenerative changes reflected on the MRI, but nevertheless concluded there had been no material worsening in permanent disability since the original award. The workers’ compensation Judge found petitioner had established a material increase in disability supported by objective medical evidence and increased the award to 35% permanent disability of the right foot. The Judge also assessed increased attorney's fees and costs against the employer after finding that the respondent failed to extend any settlement offer, which the Judge viewed as a failure to “negotiate in good faith”. On appeal, the employer principally argued that petitioner should not receive an increased permanency award after refusing recommended surgical treatment. The Appellate Division rejected that argument and affirmed the increased award, emphasizing both the reasonableness of the petitioner’s decision and the deference afforded to factual findings made by the workers’ compensation judge. Relying upon N.J.S.A. 34:15-23, Robinson v. Jackson, 184 A. 811, 812 (E. & A. 1936) and Lorenc v. Chemirad Corp., 179 A.2d 401, 412-413 (N.J. 1962), the court reiterated that an employee’s refusal of surgery does not automatically justify reducing or denying benefits. Rather, the inquiry is whether the refusal was reasonable under the circumstances. Here, the workers’ compensation judge credited the petitioner's testimony regarding his increased functional limitations, his belief that the prior surgery had failed, and his reasonable fear that undergoing an additional surgery could jeopardize both his employment and quality of life. Because credibility determinations and factual findings are entitled to substantial deference on appeal, the Appellate Division declined to disturb those findings. Finally, the Appellate Division affirmed the award of attorney’s fees and costs, concluding the judge did not abuse his discretion after finding respondent failed to “negotiate in good faith” by declining to make any settlement offer before trial. Although attorney's fees are commonly allocated on a 60/40 split, workers’ compensation judges have discretion to deviate from that practice based on the circumstances of the case. Grasso reinforces several important principles governing re-openers and provides valuable guidance for evaluating permanency exposure. First, objective medical evidence remains critical. Subjective complaints alone are not enough. Petitioners continue to bear the burden of proving, through objective medical evidence, a material increase in disability since the prior award. MRI findings, diagnostic studies, changes in physical examination findings, and documented functional loss remain significantly more persuasive than increased subjective complaints alone. Second, a petitioner's refusal to undergo recommended surgery is not dispositive when evaluating increased permanency. Respondents should not assume that declining recommended treatment will automatically limit exposure. Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the refusal was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Third, develop a complete record. Defense experts should be asked to address more than whether permanency has increased. When there has been no increase, experts need to explain why. When surgery has been recommended, experts should explain: whether the proposed procedure offers a reasonable likelihood of improving function; the expected risks and recovery; whether refusing surgery materially contributes to ongoing disability; and whether any worsening is attributable to the original work injury, normal aging, or unrelated degeneration. A well-developed expert opinion assists respondents in their arguments and also provides workers’ compensation judges with a fuller record when evaluating both the reasonableness of refusing treatment and whether a petitioner has met the burden of proving increased disability. Fourth, the Appellate Division repeatedly emphasized the highly deferential standard afforded to compensation judges. Once a workers’ compensation judge makes supported credibility determinations and factual findings, reversal on appeal becomes difficult. Finally, maintain active communication regarding settlement authority. While the Workers' Compensation Act does not define "good-faith" settlement negotiations, Grasso illustrates that a court may consider the absence of any settlement offer when exercising its discretion to assess attorney's fees and costs. Promptly providing settlement authority, even where the claim remains disputed, allows defense counsel to engage in meaningful negotiations and helps reduce the risk of a higher fee award. In summary, Grasso serves as an important reminder that the focus remains on whether the petitioner has established a material increase in disability through objective medical evidence and whether the refusal of treatment is reasonable under the circumstances. The decision also highlights the substantial deference afforded to workers' compensation judges' factual and credibility determinations and demonstrates the importance of timely settlement authority to facilitate meaningful negotiations and reduce the risk of increased attorney's fees and costs. Gabrielle is an Associate in our Mount Laurel, NJ office. She can be reached at (856) 414-6057 or GLWinter@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees Due to Lack of Evidence to Support Fee Awarded

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding appellate fees to People’s Trust Insurance Company based upon a lack of evidence to support the attorney’s fee award in RM & Assocs. Consulting, Inc. v. People's Trust Ins. Co., 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 4654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). People’s Trust was the insurer of a residential property that had sustained water damage. RM & Associates Consulting was hired by the homeowner to perform mitigation services at the property. The homeowner assigned post-loss benefits to RM and RM subsequently filed suit against People’s Trust alleging that it had not been paid the money it was owed for the mitigation services. People’s Trust defended the lawsuit on the ground that the policy required the insured to notify the insurer before authorizing repairs so People's Trust could elect to use its preferred contractor. Because the owner did not comply with that provision, People's Trust asserted its liability was limited to the amount that its preferred contractor would have charged for the work, which People's Trust contended was $2,000. People's Trust paid that amount to RM before RM filed suit. People’s Trust filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. RM appealed the summary judgment ruling and the ruling was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate court also granted People’s Trust’s entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, subject to the trial court’s determination of the amount of fees, based upon an offer of judgment made by People's Trust. On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees People’s Trust was entitled to. At the hearing, People’s Trust presented testimony from it’s fee expert, supervising trial counsel and appellate counsel. People’s Trust sought recovery of $24,866.17 for work performed by appellate counsel. The request primarily consisted of work performed in preparation of the answer brief. The fee expert testified that more than ninety hours spent preparing the answer brief was reasonable given the complexity and significance of the underlying issue. The appellate court found that the fee expert’s testimony fell short of meeting the necessary standard of demonstrating that the hours expended were necessary. The appellate court found that the billing records did not serve to cure the deficient testimony, as the billing records did not contain adequate details regarding the specific tasks performed. Rather the records contained entries such as “answer brief” which the appellate court found to be insufficient. The appellate court noted that neither the fee expert or counsel addressed how the prior research and briefing in the parallel litigation informed the work in the instant matter. The appellate court noted this was significant in that a court's attorney's fees award must exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, citing Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based upon the record failing to support the finding of the trial court, the 4th DCA remanded the case to the trial court for a reconsideration and redetermination of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees supported by competent substantial evidence. The 4th DCA reiterated that the fee expert’s focus on the quality of the work and the importance of the work to People’s Trust did not make up for the perceived deficiencies in the position that spending over ninety hours on a single answer brief was reasonable. Whether moving for attorney’s fees or challenging the amount of fees being sought by an opposing party, practitioners should be mindful of the evidence being used to support the claims being made. Parties should pay close attention to whether the hours being sought may be impacted by prior litigation either party may have engaged in. A party must be prepared to address how prior litigation efforts did or did not impact the amount of hours being claimed in current litigation. Lastly, billing records must be sufficiently detailed so as to support any potential future fee claim.

Thought Leadership

United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida finds Evidence of Replacement Cost Value is Admissible and Recoverable Even When Repairs Have Not Been Made

The plaintiff filed a claim for damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. It claimed damages were over $24 million, but the carrier accepted partial coverage and paid $8,307.49 for secondary components. The carrier found hurricane damage to the building, but it was below the insurance policy’s $3.6 million deductible. The plaintiff sued for breach of the insurance policy. The carrier argued in a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff could not recover replacement cost value (RCV) because the property repairs had not been effectuated. The policy provided for RCV, but only after the repairs were completed. The carrier argued that because the repairs were not completed, the plaintiff was not entitled to RCV damages. The plaintiff argued the carrier could not withhold the actual cost value (ACV) due, which was the main allegation of the lawsuit, then fault it for not making the repairs to unlock the RCV. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected the carrier’s argument, finding that when an insurer allegedly breached the policy by withholding coverage, it could not hide behind a repair-contingent provision to block the insured from RCV damages at trial. The court found the issue to be whether the contractual language designed to preclude certain coverage until after repairs are completed barred an insured from seeking those damages at trial when repairs were not complete. The court noted the Eleventh Circuit had not resolved this issue and neither side pointed to a definitive answer from the Florida Supreme Court. The court reasoned that it must look to the Sixth District Court of Appeal (6th DCA), which is the court which would have heard this case if it was in state court. The court noted the 6th DCA recently addressed this issue in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 427 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026). The Rodriguez Court found that a breach of contract action is designed to adjudicate not only whether the contract was breached, but also evaluate the damages incurred had the breach not occurred, which the Rodriguez court found to be recovery of the RCV. This court also noted basic Florida contract principles compelled the same result, as a material breach frees the nonbreaching party to suspend its own performance and can demand the full benefit of its bargain, including RCV damages. Finally, the court found the distinction between a full denial and partial denial did not compel a different result. It found the policy required the carrier to acknowledge coverage and pay ACV for all covered damages, and the failure to do that is a material breach, entitling the insured to all of the damages available under the contract, which included the RCV.

Thought Leadership

First DCA Reverses Excessive Jury Award Unsupported by the Evidence

In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a claim with Universal for damages caused by a water and sewage back up through the plumbing system and existing through multiple fixtures including the washing machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub and toilet. Universal investigated the claim, issued payment for resulting water damage totaling $7,000.00 in actual cash value ($12,000.00 in replacement cost value). The plaintiffs sought additional benefits for work needed to access the below-slab cast iron plumbing system due to the failure of the system from rust, deterioration, corrosion and breaks in the line. Universal denied any additional benefits for access. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed suit. During litigation, Universal sent a plumber to inspect the home and the plumber concluded the pipes were clogged but could be cleaned. The plaintiffs’ plumber testified that the plumbing system needed to be replaced due to holes and openings in the pipes. The plaintiffs introduced two estimates prepared by Triad Restoration services totaling $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value and an executed contract with another company for repairs with the amounts of repair redacted. Since the insurance policy did not provide coverage for repair or replacement of the plumbing system, the jury only had to decide whether the plumbing system needed to be replaced, and if it did, Universal would owe for the access costs; the jury verdict form required the jury to determine both the replacement cost value and actual cash value amounts. The jury asked if it had to rely on the Triad estimates for their amounts. The trial court advised the amount awarded had to be based on the evidence presented at trial and the law given by the trial court. The jury awarded $335,000.00 in replacement cost value or $305,000.00 in actual cash value. Universal motioned for a new trial arguing the amount awarded was unsupported by the evidence and then moved for remittitur. The trial court denied both motions and this appeal followed. The court found that while a jury’s verdict should only be disturbed with caution and discretion, the trial court must give the properly challenged award close scrutiny and determine whether it bears a reasonable relation to the damaged provided, is supported by the evidence, and could have been reached in a logical manner by reasonable means §768.74(3), (5)(d)-(e), Fla. Stat. The court found the trial court did consider the statutory requirements at the hearing on Universal’s remittitur motion and was concerned about a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and injury suffered and whether the award was supported by the evidence, but ultimately denied the motion, reasoning that the jury had been properly instructed to fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs. The court noted the only evidence providing the basis for the jury verdict was Triad’s estimates and those valued the plaintiffs' claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value; no valuation evidence reasonably supported the jury verdict. The plaintiffs argued that the jury was entitled to consider more than the estimates, but the court conveyed the evidence provided did not give the jury a way to reach the amounts they awarded. The court was also not swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument regarding inflation and later price increases, but the court noted that no evidence via the contract, nor testimony regarding increase in labor, material, fuel or construction costs were entered into the record.  The court concluded the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but it may not supply a damages number by speculation. The court did not find any of the plaintiffs’ remaining argument persuasive either. The court reversed the denial of Universal’s remittitur motion and motion for new trial as to damaged and remanded the case. The court ended its opinion with advising the trial court must determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the property measure of damages under the policy and order remittitur in an amount consistent with that determination and the evidence.