CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
ORANGE COUNTY • 2026-CA-002119-O

Jose Martinez and Martha J. Martinez v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY

Filed: Feb 26, 2026
Type: CA - Breach of Agreement/Contract

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: most of us have never read our entire homeowners insurance policy. It’s dense, it’s boring, and let’s face it — we’re just hoping we never have to use it. But for Jose and Martha Martinez of Orlando, that gamble just blew up in their faces — literally, thanks to a kitchen plumbing leak — and now they’re suing State Farm for $50,000 because the company allegedly looked at their water-damaged house, shrugged, and said, “Nah, not our problem.” Welcome to the wild world of insurance claims, where your monthly premium apparently only buys you the privilege of being denied later.

Meet Jose and Martha Martinez — a married couple living in a quiet Orlando neighborhood, doing the whole American Dream thing in their home on Emerson Point Way. They’ve been paying their State Farm Florida Insurance Company premiums like clockwork, probably crossing their fingers every time they mail that check that they’ll never actually have to find out what “covered perils” really means. Their insurer, State Farm Florida — not to be confused with its bigger, more famous cousin State Farm Mutual — is a Florida-specific entity that handles property insurance in the state, which, given the humidity, hurricanes, and general tendency for pipes to burst without warning, is basically a high-stakes game of Whac-A-Mole. The Martinezes trusted that when disaster struck, their policy would have their back. And then, on May 23, 2025, disaster did strike — in the form of a sudden, accidental plumbing leak in their kitchen. Not a flood from a storm, not a hurricane, not a sinkhole — just a pipe deciding it had given enough. Water seeped into walls, floors, probably ruined a few cabinets, and turned what should’ve been a minor repair into a full-blown restoration project. The kind of mess that makes you wonder if your drywall is secretly growing a jungle behind it.

The Martinezes did everything by the book. They reported the loss. State Farm assigned a claim number — 59-85F8-80M, because nothing says “we care” like a random string of letters and numbers. Adjusters likely came by, took notes, maybe poked at some soggy baseboards. And then… crickets. According to the lawsuit, State Farm didn’t just lowball the claim — they flat-out denied it. No explanation, no partial payment, no “we’ll cover the floors but not the cabinets.” Just silence, followed by a hard “no” on any coverage. The Martinezes were left holding the bill, staring at mold-prone walls and wondering if their $50,000 ask includes therapy for the betrayal they feel toward the concept of “insurance.”

Now, let’s break this down like we’re explaining it to a very confused goldfish. The Martinezes aren’t suing because their pipe broke — that’s just life. They’re suing because they believe State Farm broke their contract. That’s the legal beef here: breach of contract. In plain English, that means: “We paid you every month. You promised to cover certain damages. We had one of those damages. You said no. That’s not how deals work.” The policy — which, hilariously, the Martinezes admit they don’t even have a full copy of (probably buried in a folder labeled “Important Docs We’ll Look At When Hell Freezes Over”) — is supposed to outline exactly what’s covered. And according to the complaint, water damage from a sudden plumbing leak should be on that list. They’re not asking for a new roof or a pool — just the money to fix what got wrecked by an accident that, by all accounts, falls squarely under “covered loss.” And because State Farm allegedly refused to pay anything, the Martinezes say they’ve been left in financial limbo, unable to fully repair their home and probably dealing with the joy of temporary fixes, mildew smells, and the creeping dread that their home is slowly falling apart while corporate America debates semantics.

So what do they want? Fifty thousand dollars. Is that a lot? Well, depends on your frame of reference. If you’re State Farm — a company that made $7 billion in net income last year — $50K is basically pocket lint. It’s less than the annual salary of a mid-level adjuster. But for a middle-class couple in Orlando? That’s real money. That’s mortgage payments, car repairs, maybe a kid’s college fund. It’s also likely less than the full cost of repairs, which suggests the Martinezes aren’t trying to get rich — they just want to break even. They’re not asking for punitive damages (which would punish State Farm for bad behavior), or an injunction (to force them to change policies), or even a fancy declaration that they were right all along. Just cold, hard cash to fix their house. And a jury trial — because apparently, they want a room full of their peers to look State Farm in the eye and say, “Y’all messed up.”

Here’s the thing that makes this case deliciously petty in the best way: it’s not about fraud. It’s not about a scammy homeowner staging a leak with a garden hose. It’s about a basic promise — pay us, we’ll protect you — that one side feels was totally ignored. And the fact that the Martinezes don’t even have the full policy on hand? That’s almost poetic. It underscores how most of us treat insurance: we sign, we pay, we forget, assuming the fine print is just there to make lawyers feel important. But then, when the pipe bursts, the fine print becomes everything. And if State Farm is hiding behind a clause most people never read to deny a straightforward claim, well — that’s not just bad business, that’s the kind of thing that fuels outrage, lawsuits, and TikTok rants.

Our take? We’re rooting for the Martinezes — not because we think every insurance claim should be approved, but because the system only works if it’s fair. If insurers can deny coverage on technicalities while collecting premiums like clockwork, then what’s the point? Insurance isn’t a charity, but it’s also not a scam. And if State Farm really did say “no” to a sudden plumbing leak — one of the most common household disasters — without a solid, written reason, then they’re not just breaking a contract. They’re breaking trust. And in a world where we’re all one burst pipe away from disaster, that’s scarier than any mold colony growing behind your fridge.

So grab your popcorn, folks. This isn’t O.J. or The Jinx. But it is a showdown between a regular couple and a corporate giant over who gets to define “fair.” And honestly? We’ll take our true crime with a side of water damage any day.

Case Overview

$50,000 Demand Jury Trial Complaint
Jurisdiction
Circuit Court of the 9th Judicial Circuit, Florida
Relief Sought
$50,000 Monetary
Plaintiffs
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 Breach of Contract Plaintiffs claim Defendant breached their insurance policy by denying coverage for a plumbing leak that caused water damage to their property.

Docket Events

2 entries

Petition Text

762 words
JOSE MARTINEZ AND MARTHA J. MARTINEZ, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMES NOW Plaintiffs, Jose Martinez and Martha J. Martinez, by and through undersigned counsel, and sue Defendant, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, alleging as follows: 1. This is an action for breach of contract with damages that exceed Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($50,000.00), but do not exceed Seventy-Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interests and costs. 2. Plaintiffs are individuals who, at all times material hereto, have resided in Orange County, Florida. 3. Defendant is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Florida, qualified to do business in Florida, and has at all times material hereto been conducting business in Orange County, Florida. 4. Venue is proper in Orange County, Florida because the contract, which forms the subject matter of this lawsuit, was executed and effective in Orange County, Florida. 5. All conditions precedent to the filing of this lawsuit have occurred, have been waived or have been performed. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 6. At all times material hereto, in consideration of a premium paid by Plaintiffs, there was in full force and effect a certain homeowners insurance policy issued by Defendant with a policy number of 59EDK7707 (hereinafter “the Policy”). 7. Plaintiffs are not in possession of a full copy of the insurance policy sued upon herein and are therefore unable to attach a copy of the entire policy that forms the basis of the Complaint. However, Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the insurance policy pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(a). A copy of the Policy will be obtained via Discovery. 8. Accordingly, under the terms of the Policy, Defendant agreed to provide insurance coverage to Plaintiffs’ property against certain losses. The damaged property is located at 5527 Emerson Point Way Orlando, FL 32819 (hereinafter “the Property”). 9. On or about May 23, 2025, while the Policy was in full force and effect, the Property sustained a covered loss (hereinafter “the Loss”) as the result of a sudden and accidental plumbing leak originating in the Property’s kitchen, which subsequently caused water/moisture damage to multiple areas of the Property’s surrounding interior. 10. Defendant assigned claim number 59-85F8-80M (hereinafter “the Claim”) to the Loss. 11. Subsequently, Defendant failed to indemnify Plaintiffs for the covered loss by denying coverage for the claim, leaving the insureds unable to restore their property to its pre-loss condition. 12. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer damages resulting from Defendant’s breach of the Policy by failing to make any payment of coverage benefits to Plaintiffs. COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT 13. Plaintiffs reincorporate paragraphs 1 through 12 as if fully set forth herein. 14. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a written contract, wherein Plaintiffs agreed to pay a premium and Defendant agreed to insure Plaintiffs’ Property against certain damages. 15. Plaintiffs have paid all premiums due and owing as contemplated by the Policy; thus, fully performing their obligations under the Policy. 16. The Property sustained damage of the type for which Defendant agreed to provide coverage under the terms of the Policy. 17. Furthermore, at all times material hereto, Plaintiffs have satisfied all post-loss obligations to the best of their ability in accordance with the Policy. 18. In contrast, Defendant has failed to: (i) acknowledge coverage for any portion of the Loss; and/or (ii) acknowledge that any payment for the Loss would be forthcoming; and/or (iii) make any payment of necessary insurance proceeds for the Loss to Plaintiffs. As a result of the foregoing, Defendant has breached the Policy. 19. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the Policy, Plaintiffs have sustained damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment against Defendant for damages, plus interest and court costs. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. Dated this 26th of February, 2026. Respectfully Submitted, EDUARDO M. PIMENTEL, P.A. 13755 SW 145th Ct. Suite 1B Miami, FL 33186 Tel: (786) 862-5428 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] By: /s/ Eduardo Pimentel, Esq Eduardo Pimentel, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 1025064 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this document will be served on Defendant along with the Summons in this action. Dated this 26th of February, 2026. EDUARDO M. PIMENTEL, P.A. 13755 SW 145th Ct. Suite 1B Miami, FL 33186 Tel: (786) 862-5428 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] By: /s/ Eduardo Pimentel, Esq Eduardo Pimentel, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 1025064
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.