Preview
Filing# 140003214 E-Filed 12/08/2021 11:53:20 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
SAGE
BEACH
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit
corporation,
Plaintiff.
V
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
DIVISION: 07
PMG DRIFTWOOD, LLC, a Florida limited
The Honorable Jack Tuter
liability
company;
GLENEWINKEL
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC, a Florida
CONSOLIDATED WITH
limited liability
company; URVANX, INC., a
CASE NO. CACE 20-017790
Florida
corporation;
SHAMROCK
ENGINEERING CORP., a Florida corporation;
CALVIN, GIORDANO & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
a Florida corporation;
and CHM STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERS, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company; ARMSTRONG AIR CONDITION &
HEATING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a
Florida
corporation; ASSOCIATED
STEEL
AND ALUMINUM, INC., a Florida corporation;
B.
CODY PLUMBING, INC., a Florida
corporation;BRADFORD PRODUCTS, LLC, a
North
Carolina
limited
liability company;
BUILDING ENVELOPE SYSTEMS, INC., a
Florida
corporation;
CONSTRUCTION
SPECIALTIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation;
DUN-RITE MARBLE & GRANITE, INC., a
Florida
corporation;
EAST
COAST
CONTRACTORS SUPPLY, INC., a Florida
corporation;
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC.,
a Florida corporation;FINE LINE ELECTRIC,
INC., a Florida corporation;FLOOD PANEL,
LLC, a Florida limited liabilitycompany;
HOLLYWOOD STONE, INC., a Florida
Corporation;
J.L.K.
CAULKING
AND
COATINGS COMPANY, a Florida corporation;
LUSHLIFE, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company; NEW DOOR INSTALLATION CO., a
Florida
corporation;
NEXT
DOOR
DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY,
an
inactive
Florida
R&L
corporation;
PAINTING, INC., a
Florida
corporation; ROSEN
MATERIALS,
LLC, a Florida limited liabilitycompany;
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 12/08/2021 11:53:20 PM.****
Case No. CACE 20-017530
SECURITY INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS, INC.,
a Florida corporation;SOUTHERN COAST
ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation;
SOUTH DADE LIGHTING, INC., a Florida
corporation; SOUTHERN FIRE
CONTROL,
INC.,
a
Florida
corporation; TEKTON
CONSTRUCTION,
CORP.,
a
Florida
corporation; ZARRELLA
CONSTRUCTION,
INC., a Florida corporation,
Defendants.
i
PMG DRIFTWOOD, LLC, a Florida limited
liability
company,
Plaintiff.
V
SAGE BEACH CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit
corporation,
Defendant.
i
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY AND AVOIDANCE OF DEFENDANT BRADFORD PRODUCTS,
LLC'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND MOTION TO STRIKE
CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Plaintiff,SAGE BEACH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. (hereinafter,
"Plaintiff' or "the Association"),by and through undersigned counsel, files this Reply to and
Avoidance of Defendant, BRADFORD PRODUCTS, LLC ("BRADFORD..,')Affirmative
Defenses and Motion to Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses, and states as follows:
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY AND AVOIDANCE
1.
This is an action arising from the defective development, design, and
construction of the Sage Beach Condominium Development located at 2105 and 2205 South
Surf Road, Hollywood, Florida 33019.
2
Case No. CACE 20-017530
2.
BRADFORD filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Association's
First Amended Complaint on November 18, 2021. Attached as Ex. "A"
3
In its Answer, BRADFORD asserts twenty-three (23) separate affirmative
defenses.
4.
The Association expresslyreserves its rightto file a Motion for Summary
Judgment regardingcertain affirmative defenses because they are either not legallyrecognized
affirmative defenses or because they fail to comply with Florida's pleadingrequirements.
5.
The Association denies the allegationsof each and every affirmative defense
asserted by BRADFORD, demands strict proofthereof,and reserves any and all arguments that
could be used to defeat said affirmative defenses.
6.
The Association reserves its rightto move to strike any additional affirmative
defenses that have been waived by BRADFORD' s failure to assert them.
LEGAL STANDARD
7.
Florida is a fact-pleading
jurisdiction.
Horowitz v. Laske, 855 So. 2d 169,173
(Fla.5th DCA 2003). This pleadingrequirementalso appliesto affirmative defenses. Bliss v.
Carmona, 418 So. 2d 1017 (Fla.3d DCA 1982).
8.
An affirmative defense is one that admits the cause of action asserted by the
preceding pleading,but avoids liability,
wholly or partially,
by allegationsof excuse,
justification,
or other matter negatingliability.
Mancinelli v. Davis, 217 So. 3d 1034, 1038 (Fla.
4th DCA 2017);Lynn v. Feldmeth, %49 So.2d 481 (Fla.2d DCA 2003); see also Black's Law
Dictionary ("A defendant's assertion that raises new facts and arguments that,iftrue,will defeat
plaintiff's
or government's claim even if all allegations
in the complaint are true.").
9-
Moreover, affirmative defenses must be properly supported by sufficient
3
Case No. CACE 20-017530
allegationsof ukimate fact. Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson, Greer, Weaver & Harris, P.A. v.
Bowmar Instrument Corp.,537 So. 2d 561,563 (Fla.1988);Bliss, 418 So. 2d at 1019 (Fla.3d
DCA 1982) ([clertainyis requiredwhen pleaded defenses and claims alike");see also Zito v.
Washington Federal Savings & Loan Association ofMiami Beach, 31% So. ld 175, 176 (Ba. 3d
DCA 1975)("[T]herequirementof certaintywill be insisted upon in the pleadingof a defense."
Facts must be set forth in such a manner as to reasonablyinform the adversaryofthe nature and
elements of the defense.
10.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(d)providesthat affirmative defenses are
an avoidance of allegationscontained in the Complaint, not a denial of the allegations.
"Affirmative defenses" which are mere denials of liability
are subjectto being stricken. BPS
Guard Services, Inc. v. GufPower Co., 488 So. 2d 638,641 (Fla.1st DCA 1986);Gatt v. Keyes
Corp.,446 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla.3d DCA 1984);and Wiggins v. Portmay Corporation,430 So.
2d 541, 542 (Fla.1st DCA 1983).
11.
Conclusory allegations
are insufficient and render the defense subjectto being
stricken. Cady v. Chevy Chase Savingsand Loan, Inc.,518 So. ld 136, 13 8 (Fla.4th DCA 1988)
(affirmativedefenses that are "conclusory in their content and lackingin any real allegationsof
ultimate fact demonstrating a good defense to the complaint" are legallyinsufficient).
12.
Moreover, Rule 1.1430(e)provide that if affirmative defenses are "vague or
ambiguous that a party reasonablybe requiredto frame a responsivepleading,"the party may
move for a more definite statement.
13.
The Florida Supreme Court held that,"In order to include a non-party on the
verdict form pursuant to Fabre v. Marin, the defendant must pleadas an affirmative defense [1]
the negligenceofthe non-party; and [2]specifically
identifythe non-party"Nash v. Wells Fargo
4
Case No. CACE 20-017530
Guard Service, Inc., 678 So. 2d 1262 (Fla.1996).Further, the conduct which allegedlywas
negligentmust be pledwith allegations
ofultimate facts,not justa conclusion that the non-party
was negligentin some unexplained way. Id.
14.
Finally,Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(f)providesthat a Court may at
any time "strike redundant, immaterial,impertinent,
or scandalous matter from any pleading."
ARGUMENT
15.
First Affirmative (Limitation of Liability): This defense alleges that
"BRADFORD's liability
is limited by the terms of any applicablesubcontracts and warranty
agreements between Bradford and any party for this Project."First,to the extent this defense
relies on any contract terms, this defense fails because BRADFORD did not attach nor refer to
any provisionof any contract. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130(a).Second, this defense should be
stricken because BRADFORD fails to providethe requisitespecificity
and particularity
so as to
reasonably inform the Association of what the defense is proposed in order to provide the
Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and prepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537
So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Moreover, this defense is entirelyconclusory.Id.
Accordingly,the defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively,
BRADFORD should be
requiredto plead with greater particularity.
16.
Second Affirmative Defense (Failure to Mitigate Damages): This defense
assertingthat the Association has failed to mitigate damages should be stricken because
BRADFORD fails to allegewith any specificityor factual support how the Association has
"failed to mitigate"damages. The defense is entirelyconclusory.See Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138.
Accordingly,this defense fails and should be stricken,or alternatively,
BRADFORD should be
requiredto plead with greater particularity.
5
Case No. CACE 20-017530
17.
Third Affirmative Defense (Set-Off):This defense allegesthat BRADFORD
is entitled to a set-off of any collateral source payments, settlements,etc. First,"set-off' is not
an affirmative defense to be determined by the trier of fact "but is a determination regarding
damages to be made by the court after the [iury]verdict is rendered [in a jury trial]."
Felgenhauer, 891 So.2d 1043 at 1045. Second, this defense should be stricken because
BRADFORD fails to provide the requisitespecificityand particularityso as to reasonably
inform the Association of what the defense is proposed in order to providethe Association with
a fair opportunityto meet it andprepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady,
528 So. 2d at 138. Moreover, this defense is entirelyconclusory.Id. Accordingly,the defense
fails and should be stricken or alternatively,
BRADFORD should be requiredto plead with
greater particularity.
18.
Fifth Affirmative Defense (§57.105):This Defense allegesthat Bradford "may"
be entitled to attorneys'fees from the Association "if' it prevailsin this action as detailed in
§57.105. First,this defense should be stricken because BRADFORD fails to provide the
requisite
specificity
and particularity
so as to reasonablyinform the Association of what the
defense is proposed in order to provide the Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and
prepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Accordingly,
the defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively,
BRADFORD should be requiredto
pleadwith greater particularity.
19.
Sixth Affirmative Defense (Statute of
This defense
allegesthat the Association's claims are barred by the statute of limitations and/or repose. First,
this defense should be stricken because BRADFORD fails to providethe requisite
specificity
and particularity
so as to reasonablyinform the Association of what the defense is proposed in
6
Case No. CACE 20-017530
order to providethe Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and prepare evidence. Bowmar
Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Hence, BRADFORD does not
specifically
identifythe dates when these triggeringevents that would constitute the tolling
period for the statute of limitations or repose occurred. Moreover, this defense is entirely
conclusory.Id. Accordingly, the defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively,
BRADFORD should be requiredto pleadwith greater particularity.
20.
Seventh Affirmative Defense (Grossman -Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414
So.2d 1037 (Fla. 1982): This defense allegesthat the Association's damages, if any are
restricted pursuant to the "requirements"as set forth in the case of Grossman Holdings Ltd v.
Hourihan, 414 So 2d 1037 (Fla.1982).This defense should be stricken because Bradford fails
to providethe requisite
specificity
and particularity
so as to reasonablyinform the Association
of what the defense is proposed in order to providethe Association with a fair opportunityto
meet it and prepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138.
Indeed, BRADFORD merely cites to a case without any factual basis as to why the Association's
damages should be limited to the "requirements" set forth in Grossman, or what those
requirements are. Accordingly, the defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively,
BRADFORD should be requiredto pleadwith greater particularity.
21.
Eighth Affirmative Defense (Comparative Fault/Fabre): This defense alleges
that Association's claim is barred by the doctrine of comparative fault ofpartiesand non-parties
(includingthe Association).In support of this defense BRADFORD generallycites to Florida
Statutes (§768.81)and the case Fabre v. Marin. BRADFORD then lists over thirty-two(32)
entities without specifically
statingultimate facts as to the negligenceof each party and/or non-
party and in some instances fails to specifically
identifynon-parties.
As such, BRADFORD fails
7
Case No. CACE 20-017530
to providethe requisitespecificity
and particularity
so as to reasonablyinform the Association
of what the defense is proposed in order to providethe Association with a fair opportunityto
meet it and prepare evidence as requiredby Bowar and Nash. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at
563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Accordingly, this defense fails and should be stricken or
alternatively,
BRADFORD should be requiredto pleadwith greater particularity.
22.
Ninth Affirmative Defense (Association's Negligence): This affirmative
defense allegesthat "the Association was guiltyof negligence,which negligencewas either the
sole proximate cause of the allegationsin the Complaint, or, in the alternative,contributed
thereto. As a result,the Association is therefore either barred from recovery or, in the alternative,
any damages awarded againstBradford should be reduced pursuant to the Ruel of Comparative
Negligence.").This defense should be stricken because Bradford fails to provide the requisite
specificity
and particularity
so as to reasonablyinform the Association of what the defense is
proposed in order to provide the Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and prepare
evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Indeed,BRADFORD
does not state with particularity
what, if any, allegednegligentconduct by the association caused
the allegationsin the operativecomplaint.Moreover, this defense is redundant (seeAffirmative
Defense #8).Accordingly,the defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively,
BRADFORD
should be requiredto plead with greater particularity.
23.
Twelfth Affirmative Defense (Betterment):
This defense alleges that
Association's claim is barred by the doctrine ofBetterment. First,this defense should be stricken
because BRADFORD fails to provide the requisitespecificityand particularity
so as to
reasonably inform the Association of what the defense is proposed in order to provide the
Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and prepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537
8
Case No. CACE 20-017530
So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Second, this defense is entirelyconclusory.Id.
BRADFORD does not specifically
articulate what, if any, allegeddamages for costs constitute
a betterment.
Accordingly, the defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively,
BRADFORD should be requiredto pleadwith greater particularity.
24.
Thirteenth Affirmative Defense (Slavindoctrine): This defense conclusively
cites to the "Slavin Rule" as a basis for barringthe Association's claims. Slavin v. Kay, 108 So.
2d 462 (Fla.1959) and its progeny are only applicableto personalinjuryactions brought by
third parties,
not property owners. See Slavin v. Kay, 108 So. 2d 462, 467 (Fla.1958);see also
Mcintosh v. ProgressiveDesign and Eng'g Inc., 166 So. 3d 823, 829 (Fla.4th DCA 2015)
(personalrepresentative
brought action followingdeath of driver resultingfrom defective traffic
signals);Transp. Eng'g, Inc. v. Cruz, 152 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (personal
representative
of deceased passenger'sestate brought action related to death followingimpact
with uncushioned guardrailon the Florida Turnpike);Plaza v. Fisher Dev., Inc.,971 So. 2d 918,
924 (Fla.3d DCA 2007) (employee injured from fall from conveyor system installed at
employer'sstore);Gonsalves v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 859 So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Fla.4th DCA
2003) ("The slavin doctrine considers the respectiveliability
of an owner and contractor, after
the owner has resumed possession of the construction, for injuriesto a third person for
negligenceof the contractor in the construction of the improvement.");Fla. Dept. of Transp.v.
CapelettiBros., Inc.,743 So. 2d 150 (Fla.3d DCA 1999) (motoristinjuredin accident related
to missing guardrailon highway). There are no claims of personal injury related to the
construction at issue;therefore,Slavin is inapplicable.
Accordingly,the defense fails and should
be stricken.
25.
Fourteenth Affirmative Defense (Waiver, Estoppel, and Laches):
This
9
Case No. CACE 20-017530
defense conclusivelyallegesthat Association's claim is barred by the doctrines of waiver,
estoppel,and laches. First,this defense should be stricken because BRADFORD fails to provide
the requisitespecificity
and particularity
so as to reasonablyinform the Association ofwhat the
defenses are proposed in order to providethe Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and
prepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Second, this
defense (which in fact is 3 defenses)is entirelyconclusory.Id. Accordingly,the defense fails
and should be stricken or alternatively,
BRADFORD should be requiredto plead with greater
particularity.
26.
Fifteenth
Affirmative
Defense
(Intervening/Superseding
Cause):
BRADFORD allegesthat intervening/supersedingactions or other persons, or entities constitute
interveningand/or supersedingcauses ofPlaintiff's allegeddamages without specifically
stating
ultimate facts as to the negligence of each persons, or entity,and/or non-party. As such,
BRADFORD fails to provide the requisitespecificityand particularityso as to reasonably
inform the Association of what the defense is proposed in order to providethe Association with
a fair opportunityto meet it and prepare evidence as requiredby Bowar and Nash. Bowmar
Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Accordingly, this defense fails and
should be stricken or alternatively,
BRADFORDshould be required to plead with greater
particularity.
27.
Nineteenth Affirmative Defense (Standing): This defense alleges that
Association's claim is barred or limited to the extent the Association does not have standingto
bringthese claims. First,this defense should be stricken because BRADFORD fails to provide
the requisite
specificity
and particularity
so as to reasonablyinform the Association of what the
defense is proposed in order to provide the Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and
10
Case No. CACE 20-017530
prepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Second, this
defense is entirelyconclusorybecause BRADFORD does not identifywhat specificclaims are
the Association is barred from bringing.Id. Accordingly,the defense fails and should be stricken
or alternatively,
CHM should be requiredto pleadwith greater particularity.
WHEREFORE, the Association respectfullyrequests this Court strike BRADFORD' s
aforementioned Affirmative Defenses, or in the alternative,request a more definite statement of
same and grant such other and further relief this Court deems justand proper.
Dated: December 8, 2021.
Respectfullysubmitted,
BALL JANIK LLP
Miami Tower - Suite 3310
100 S.E. Second Street
Miami, FL 33131
Main: 786-770-8665
Direct: 786-770-8650
Fax:
407-902-2105
By: /s/ ElijahC. Waring Jr.
PHILLIP E. JOSEPH, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 1000368
EVAN SMALL, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 57306
GABRIEL Z. COELHO, ESQ.
Florida Bar. No. 047685
ELIJAH C. WARING, JR., ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 1008326
pjoseph@balljanik.
com
esmall@balljanik.
com
gcoelho@balljanik.
com
ewaring@balljanik.com
ngracey@balljanik.
com
lcollado@balljanik.com
cbetancourt@balljanik.
com
com
orlandodocket@balljanik.
com
11
Case No. CACE 20-017530
Counselfor Plaintiff,
Sage Beach
Condominium Association, Inc.
12
Case No. CACE 20-017530
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
electronically
furnished to all partiesof record via the Florida Courts E-filingPortal System on
this 8th day of December 2021.
By: /s/ ElijahC. Waring Jr.
GABRIEL Z. COELHO, ESQ.
ELIJAH C. WARING JR., ESQ.
SERVICE LIST
GARY F. BAUMANN, ESQ.
JEREMY C. DANIELS, ESQ.
ELIZABETH M. WHITE, ESQ.
CHRISTAL R. TOMAC, ESQ.
Baumann, Gant & Keeley,P.A.
Daniels,Rodriguez,Berkeley,Daniels
1401 E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 200
& Cruz, P.A.
Fort Lauderdale, FL 333 01
4000 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 800
T. 954-440-4611
Coral Gables, FL 33146
F. 954-440-4613
T. 305-488-7988
gbaumann@baumannlegal.com
F. 305-488-7978
ewhite@baumannlegal.com
jdaniels@drbdc-law.com
dcaleca@baumannlegal.com
service-jed@drbdc-law.
com
ngloria@baumannlegal.com
dortiz@drbdc-law.
com
Counsel for PMG Driftwood LLC and
ctomac@drbdc-law. com
Glenewinkel Construction Company LLC
service-crt@drbdc-law.
com
vmedina@drbdc-law.com
Counsel for Urvanx Inc.
JOSH M. RUBENS, ESQ.
Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen
SANAZ ALEMPOUR, ESQ.
& Levine, P.L.
Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
CitigroupCenter, 277t?1
Lakeside
Floor
Office Center, Suite 500
201 South Biscayne Blvd.
600 North Pine Island Road
Miami, FL 33131
Plantation,FL 33324
T. 305-379-9000
T. 954-343-3902
jrubens@klugerkaplan.com
F. 954-474-7979
Counsel for PMG Driftwood LLC
Sanaz.alempour@csklegal.com
Ian.calder@csklegal.com
SCOTT L. BUSCEMI, ESQ.
Toni.ortiz@csklegal.com
Property Markets Group
Counsel for Calvin Giordano & Associates
T: 305.384.6745
Inc.
sbuscemi@propertymg.com
General Counsel for PMG Driftwood LLC
13
Case No. CACE 20-017530
RYAN M. CHARLSON, ESQ.
MANUEL A. RODRIGUEZ, ESQ.
GEORGE R. TRUITT, ESQ.
Trust Counsel
ANTHONY LOPEZ, ESQ
357 Almeria Ave, Suite 103
Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Suite 1400
T. 305-707-7126
9150 S. Dadeland Boulevard
mannyar@gmail.com
Miami, Florida 33156
rodriguez@trustcounsel.com
T. 305-350-5300
marenco@trustcounsel.com
F. 305-373-2294
dulce@trustcounsel.com
E. Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com
Counsel for Shamrock Engineering Corp.
George.Truitt@csklegal.com
Anthony.Lopez@csklegal.com
Nicole.Kaufman@csklegal.com
Susana.Rodriguez@csklegal.com
Judith.Gracia@csklegal.com
Lisa.Heftel@csklegal.com
Construction.FTLW@csklegal.com
Counselfor CHM Structural EngineersLLC
14
EXHIBIT A
Filing# 138802411 E-Filed 1 1/18/2021 12:59:45 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH
JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT
IN
AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
CONSOLIDATE CASE NO.:
SAGE BEACH CONDOMINIUM
CACE 20-017790
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
V
PMG DRIFTWOOD, LLC; GLENEWINKEL
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC; URVANX,
INC.; SHAMROCK ENGINEERING CORP.;
CALVIN, GIORDANO & ASSOCIATES, INC.;
CHM STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC;
ARMSTRONG AIR CONDITION & HEATING
OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC.; ASSOCIATED
STEEL AND ALUMINUM, INC.; B. CODY
PLUMBING, INC.; BRADFORD PRODUCTS, LLC;
BUILDING ENVELOPE SYSTEMS, INC.;
CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES, INC.; DUN-RITE
MARBLE & GRANITE, INC.; EAST COAST
CONTRACTORS SUPPLY, INC.; FERGUSON
ENTERPRISES, INC.; FINE LINE ELECTRIC, INC.;
FLOOD PANEL, LLC; HOLLYWOOD STONE, INC.;
J.L.K. CAULKING AND COATINGS COMPANY;
LUSHLIFE, LLC; NEW DOOR INSTALLATION CO.;
NEXT DOOR DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; R&L
PAINTING, INC.; ROSEN MATERIALS, LLC;
SECURITY INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS, INC.;
SOUTHERN COAST ENTERPRISES, INC.; SOUTH
DADE LIGHTING, INC.; SOUTHERN FIRE CONTROL,
INC.; TEKTON CONSTRUCTION, CORP.; and
ZARRELLA CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Defendants
PMG DRIFTWOOD, LLC
Plaintiff,
V
SAGE BEACH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
Defendant.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
DEFENDANT, BRADFORD PRODUCTS, LLC'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Defendant, Bradford Products, LLC ("Bradford"),by and through its undersigned
counsel, hereby responds to Plaintiff,
Sage Beach Condominium Association, Inc.'s First
Amended Complaint for Damages as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1-
Denied.
2-
Denied.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.
Admitted for jurisdictional
purposes only.
4-
Admitted.
5.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
6.
Admitted for jurisdictionaland venue purposes only.
7-
Denied.
PARTIES
8.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
9.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
10.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
11.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
12.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
13.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
14.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
15.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
Page I 2
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
16.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
17.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
18.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
19.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
20.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
21.
Admitted.
22.
Denied.
23.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
24.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
25.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
26.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
27.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
28.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
29.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
30.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
31.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
32.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
33.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
34.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
35.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
36.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
37.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
38.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
Page I 3
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
39.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
40.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
41.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
42.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
43.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
44.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
45.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
46.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
47.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
48.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
49.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
50.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
51.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
52.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
53.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
54.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
55.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
56.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
57.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
58.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
59.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
60.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
61.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
Page I 4
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
62.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
63.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
BACKGROUND FACTS AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
64.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
65.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
66.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
67.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
68.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
69.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
70.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
71.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
72.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
73.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
74.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
75.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
76.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
77.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
78.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
79.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
a.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
b.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
c.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
d.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
Page I 5
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
e.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
f-
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
g.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
h.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
j
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
k.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
'
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
m.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
n.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
o.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
p.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
q.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
r-
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
S
Denied.
t.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
u.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
v.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
w.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
x.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
y.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
z.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
aa.
Without knowledge, therefore denied.
Page I 6
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
80.
Denied.
81.
Denied.
82.
Denied.
83.
Denied.
84.
Denied.
85.
Denied.
86.
Denied.
87.
Denied.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
(Against PMG)
88.
Bradford
realleges
and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
89. - 97.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 89-97 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT -
Il
VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE
(Against PMG)
98.
Bradford
realleges and incorporates by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
99. - 107.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 99-107 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
Page I 7
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
COUNT Ill- BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
(Against PMG)
108.
Bradford
realleges and
incorporates
by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
109. - 114.
The allegations set for in Paragraphs 109-114 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT IV - UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(Against PMG)
115.
Bradford
realleges
and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
116. - 123.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 1 16-123 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT V - NEGLIGENCE
(Against GCC)
124.
Bradford
realleges and incorporates by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
125. - 133.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 1 25-133 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
Page I 8
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
COUNT VI - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE
(Against GCC)
134.
Bradford
realleges and
incorporates
by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
135. - 143.
The allegations set for in Paragraphs 1 35-143 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT VII- BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
(Against GCC)
144.
Bradford
realleges
and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
145. - 150.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 145-150 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT Vlll- NEGLIGENCE/PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
(Against URVANX)
151.
Bradford
realleges and incorporates by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
152. - 155.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 152-155 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
Page I 9
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
COUNT IX
BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS
(Against URVANX)
156.
Bradford
realleges and incorporates by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
157. - 162.
The allegations set for in Paragraphs 157-162 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT X - NEGLIGENCE/PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
(Against SHAMROCK)
163.
Bradford
realleges
and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
164. - 167.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 1 64-167 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XI
BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS
(Against SHAMROCK)
168.
Bradford
realleges
and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
169. - 174.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 169-174 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
Page I 10
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
COUNT XII- NEGLIGENCE/PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
(Against CG&A)
175.
Bradford
realleges and
incorporates
by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
176. - 179.
The allegations set for in Paragraphs 1 76-179 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XIII- BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS
(Against CG&A)
180.
Bradford
realleges
and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
181. - 186.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 1 81-186 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XIV - NEGLIGENCE/PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
(Against CHM)
187.
Bradford
realleges and incorporates by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
188. - 191.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 188-191 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
Page I 11
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
COUNT XV - BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS
(Against CHM)
192.
Bradford
realleges and
incorporates
by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
193. - 198.
The allegations set for in Paragraphs 1 93-198 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XVI - NEGLIGENCE
(Against ARMSTRONG)
199.
Bradford
realleges
and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
200. - 209.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 200-209 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XVII- VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE
(Against ARMSTRONG)
210.
Bradford
realleges and incorporates by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
211. - 219.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 211-219 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
Page I 12
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
COUNT XVIII- NEGLIGENCE
(Against ASA)
220.
Bradford
realleges and
incorporates
by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
221. - 230.
The allegations set for in Paragraphs 221-230 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XIX - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE
(Against ASA)
231.
Bradford
realleges
and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
232. - 240.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 232-240 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XX - NEGLIGENCE
(Against B. CODY)
241.
Bradford
realleges and incorporates by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
242. - 251.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 242-251 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
Page I 13
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
COUNT XX1 - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE
(Against B. CODY)
252.
Bradford
realleges and
incorporates
by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
253. - 261.
The allegations set for in Paragraphs 253-261 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XX11- NEGLIGENCE
(Against BRADFORD)
262.
Bradford
realleges
and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
263.
Denied.
264.
Denied.
265.
Denied.
266.
Denied.
267.
Denied.
268.
Denied.
269.
Denied.
270.
Denied.
a-
Denied.
b-
Denied.
C
Denied.
d-
Denied.
Page I 14
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
e-
Denied.
f-
Denied.
g.
Denied.
271.
Denied.
272.
Denied.
COUNT XX111- VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE
(Against BRADFORD)
273.
Bradford
realleges
and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
274.
Denied.
275.
Denied.
276.
Denied.
277.
Denied.
278.
Denied.
279.
Denied.
280.
Denied.
a-
Denied
b-
Denied.
C
Denied.
d-
Denied.
e-
Denied.
f-
Denied.
g.
Denied.
281.
Denied.
Page I 15
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
282.
Denied.
COUNT XXIV - NEGLIGENCE
(Against BES)
283.
Bradford
realleges and incorporates by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
284. - 293.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 284-293 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XXV - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE
(Against BES)
294.
Bradford
realleges and
incorporates
by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
295. - 303.
The allegations set for in Paragraphs 295-303 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XXVI - NEGLIGENCE
(Against CS)
304.
Bradford
realleges
and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
305. - 314.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 305-314 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
Page I 16
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
COUNT XXVII- VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE
(Against CS)
315.
Bradford
realleges and
incorporates
by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
316. - 324.
The allegations set for in Paragraphs 316-324 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XXVIII- NEGLIGENCE
(Against DUN-RITE)
325.
Bradford
realleges
and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
326. - 335.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 326-335 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XXIX - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE
(Against DUN-RITE)
336.
Bradford
realleges and incorporates by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
337. - 345.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 337-345 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
Page I 17
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
COUNT XXX - NEGLIGENCE
(Against ECCS)
346.
Bradford
realleges and
incorporates
by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
347. - 356.
The allegations set for in Paragraphs 347-356 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XXX1 - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE
(Against ECCS)
357.
Bradford
realleges
and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
358. - 366.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 358-366 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XXX11- NEGLIGENCE
(Against FERGUSON)
367.
Bradford
realleges and incorporates by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
368. - 377.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 368-377 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
Page I 18
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
COUNT XXX111- VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE
(Against FERGUSON)
378.
Bradford
realleges and incorporates by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
379. - 387.
The allegations set for in Paragraphs 379-387 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XXXIV - NEGLIGENCE
(Against FLE)
388.
Bradford
realleges
and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
389. - 398.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 389-398 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XXXV - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE
(Against FLE)
399.
Bradford
realleges and incorporates by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
400. - 408.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 400-408 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
Page I 19
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
COUNT XXXVI - NEGLIGENCE
(Against FLOOD PANEL)
409.
Bradford
realleges and
incorporates
by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
410. - 419.
The allegations set for in Paragraphs 410-419 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XXXVII- VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE
(Against FLOOD PANEL)
420.
Bradford
realleges
and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
421. - 429.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 421-429 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
COUNT XXXVIII- NEGLIGENCE
(Against HOLLYWOOD STONE)
430.
Bradford
realleges and incorporates by
reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein.
431. - 440.
The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 431-440 of the Plaintiffs First
Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no
response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations
are denied.
Page I 20
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING -
9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350-
5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX
CASE NO. CACE 20-017530
COUNT XXXIX - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE
(Against HOLLYWOOD STONE)
441.
Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 -87 as
Preview
Filing# 140003214 E-Filed 12/08/2021 11:53:20 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA SAGE BEACH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation, Plaintiff. V CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 DIVISION: 07 PMG DRIFTWOOD, LLC, a Florida limited The Honorable Jack Tuter liability company; GLENEWINKEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC, a Florida CONSOLIDATED WITH limited liability company; URVANX, INC., a CASE NO. CACE 20-017790 Florida corporation; SHAMROCK ENGINEERING CORP., a Florida corporation; CALVIN, GIORDANO & ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation; and CHM STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; ARMSTRONG AIR CONDITION & HEATING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation; ASSOCIATED STEEL AND ALUMINUM, INC., a Florida corporation; B. CODY PLUMBING, INC., a Florida corporation;BRADFORD PRODUCTS, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company; BUILDING ENVELOPE SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida corporation; CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation; DUN-RITE MARBLE & GRANITE, INC., a Florida corporation; EAST COAST CONTRACTORS SUPPLY, INC., a Florida corporation; FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation;FINE LINE ELECTRIC, INC., a Florida corporation;FLOOD PANEL, LLC, a Florida limited liabilitycompany; HOLLYWOOD STONE, INC., a Florida Corporation; J.L.K. CAULKING AND COATINGS COMPANY, a Florida corporation; LUSHLIFE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; NEW DOOR INSTALLATION CO., a Florida corporation; NEXT DOOR DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, an inactive Florida R&L corporation; PAINTING, INC., a Florida corporation; ROSEN MATERIALS, LLC, a Florida limited liabilitycompany; *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 12/08/2021 11:53:20 PM.**** Case No. CACE 20-017530 SECURITY INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation;SOUTHERN COAST ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation; SOUTH DADE LIGHTING, INC., a Florida corporation; SOUTHERN FIRE CONTROL, INC., a Florida corporation; TEKTON CONSTRUCTION, CORP., a Florida corporation; ZARRELLA CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendants. i PMG DRIFTWOOD, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff. V SAGE BEACH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, Defendant. i PLAINTIFF'S REPLY AND AVOIDANCE OF DEFENDANT BRADFORD PRODUCTS, LLC'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Plaintiff,SAGE BEACH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. (hereinafter, "Plaintiff' or "the Association"),by and through undersigned counsel, files this Reply to and Avoidance of Defendant, BRADFORD PRODUCTS, LLC ("BRADFORD..,')Affirmative Defenses and Motion to Strike Certain Affirmative Defenses, and states as follows: PLAINTIFF'S REPLY AND AVOIDANCE 1. This is an action arising from the defective development, design, and construction of the Sage Beach Condominium Development located at 2105 and 2205 South Surf Road, Hollywood, Florida 33019. 2 Case No. CACE 20-017530 2. BRADFORD filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Association's First Amended Complaint on November 18, 2021. Attached as Ex. "A" 3 In its Answer, BRADFORD asserts twenty-three (23) separate affirmative defenses. 4. The Association expresslyreserves its rightto file a Motion for Summary Judgment regardingcertain affirmative defenses because they are either not legallyrecognized affirmative defenses or because they fail to comply with Florida's pleadingrequirements. 5. The Association denies the allegationsof each and every affirmative defense asserted by BRADFORD, demands strict proofthereof,and reserves any and all arguments that could be used to defeat said affirmative defenses. 6. The Association reserves its rightto move to strike any additional affirmative defenses that have been waived by BRADFORD' s failure to assert them. LEGAL STANDARD 7. Florida is a fact-pleading jurisdiction. Horowitz v. Laske, 855 So. 2d 169,173 (Fla.5th DCA 2003). This pleadingrequirementalso appliesto affirmative defenses. Bliss v. Carmona, 418 So. 2d 1017 (Fla.3d DCA 1982). 8. An affirmative defense is one that admits the cause of action asserted by the preceding pleading,but avoids liability, wholly or partially, by allegationsof excuse, justification, or other matter negatingliability. Mancinelli v. Davis, 217 So. 3d 1034, 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017);Lynn v. Feldmeth, %49 So.2d 481 (Fla.2d DCA 2003); see also Black's Law Dictionary ("A defendant's assertion that raises new facts and arguments that,iftrue,will defeat plaintiff's or government's claim even if all allegations in the complaint are true."). 9- Moreover, affirmative defenses must be properly supported by sufficient 3 Case No. CACE 20-017530 allegationsof ukimate fact. Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson, Greer, Weaver & Harris, P.A. v. Bowmar Instrument Corp.,537 So. 2d 561,563 (Fla.1988);Bliss, 418 So. 2d at 1019 (Fla.3d DCA 1982) ([clertainyis requiredwhen pleaded defenses and claims alike");see also Zito v. Washington Federal Savings & Loan Association ofMiami Beach, 31% So. ld 175, 176 (Ba. 3d DCA 1975)("[T]herequirementof certaintywill be insisted upon in the pleadingof a defense." Facts must be set forth in such a manner as to reasonablyinform the adversaryofthe nature and elements of the defense. 10. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(d)providesthat affirmative defenses are an avoidance of allegationscontained in the Complaint, not a denial of the allegations. "Affirmative defenses" which are mere denials of liability are subjectto being stricken. BPS Guard Services, Inc. v. GufPower Co., 488 So. 2d 638,641 (Fla.1st DCA 1986);Gatt v. Keyes Corp.,446 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla.3d DCA 1984);and Wiggins v. Portmay Corporation,430 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla.1st DCA 1983). 11. Conclusory allegations are insufficient and render the defense subjectto being stricken. Cady v. Chevy Chase Savingsand Loan, Inc.,518 So. ld 136, 13 8 (Fla.4th DCA 1988) (affirmativedefenses that are "conclusory in their content and lackingin any real allegationsof ultimate fact demonstrating a good defense to the complaint" are legallyinsufficient). 12. Moreover, Rule 1.1430(e)provide that if affirmative defenses are "vague or ambiguous that a party reasonablybe requiredto frame a responsivepleading,"the party may move for a more definite statement. 13. The Florida Supreme Court held that,"In order to include a non-party on the verdict form pursuant to Fabre v. Marin, the defendant must pleadas an affirmative defense [1] the negligenceofthe non-party; and [2]specifically identifythe non-party"Nash v. Wells Fargo 4 Case No. CACE 20-017530 Guard Service, Inc., 678 So. 2d 1262 (Fla.1996).Further, the conduct which allegedlywas negligentmust be pledwith allegations ofultimate facts,not justa conclusion that the non-party was negligentin some unexplained way. Id. 14. Finally,Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(f)providesthat a Court may at any time "strike redundant, immaterial,impertinent, or scandalous matter from any pleading." ARGUMENT 15. First Affirmative (Limitation of Liability): This defense alleges that "BRADFORD's liability is limited by the terms of any applicablesubcontracts and warranty agreements between Bradford and any party for this Project."First,to the extent this defense relies on any contract terms, this defense fails because BRADFORD did not attach nor refer to any provisionof any contract. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130(a).Second, this defense should be stricken because BRADFORD fails to providethe requisitespecificity and particularity so as to reasonably inform the Association of what the defense is proposed in order to provide the Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and prepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Moreover, this defense is entirelyconclusory.Id. Accordingly,the defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively, BRADFORD should be requiredto plead with greater particularity. 16. Second Affirmative Defense (Failure to Mitigate Damages): This defense assertingthat the Association has failed to mitigate damages should be stricken because BRADFORD fails to allegewith any specificityor factual support how the Association has "failed to mitigate"damages. The defense is entirelyconclusory.See Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Accordingly,this defense fails and should be stricken,or alternatively, BRADFORD should be requiredto plead with greater particularity. 5 Case No. CACE 20-017530 17. Third Affirmative Defense (Set-Off):This defense allegesthat BRADFORD is entitled to a set-off of any collateral source payments, settlements,etc. First,"set-off' is not an affirmative defense to be determined by the trier of fact "but is a determination regarding damages to be made by the court after the [iury]verdict is rendered [in a jury trial]." Felgenhauer, 891 So.2d 1043 at 1045. Second, this defense should be stricken because BRADFORD fails to provide the requisitespecificityand particularityso as to reasonably inform the Association of what the defense is proposed in order to providethe Association with a fair opportunityto meet it andprepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Moreover, this defense is entirelyconclusory.Id. Accordingly,the defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively, BRADFORD should be requiredto plead with greater particularity. 18. Fifth Affirmative Defense (§57.105):This Defense allegesthat Bradford "may" be entitled to attorneys'fees from the Association "if' it prevailsin this action as detailed in §57.105. First,this defense should be stricken because BRADFORD fails to provide the requisite specificity and particularity so as to reasonablyinform the Association of what the defense is proposed in order to provide the Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and prepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Accordingly, the defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively, BRADFORD should be requiredto pleadwith greater particularity. 19. Sixth Affirmative Defense (Statute of This defense allegesthat the Association's claims are barred by the statute of limitations and/or repose. First, this defense should be stricken because BRADFORD fails to providethe requisite specificity and particularity so as to reasonablyinform the Association of what the defense is proposed in 6 Case No. CACE 20-017530 order to providethe Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and prepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Hence, BRADFORD does not specifically identifythe dates when these triggeringevents that would constitute the tolling period for the statute of limitations or repose occurred. Moreover, this defense is entirely conclusory.Id. Accordingly, the defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively, BRADFORD should be requiredto pleadwith greater particularity. 20. Seventh Affirmative Defense (Grossman -Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 1982): This defense allegesthat the Association's damages, if any are restricted pursuant to the "requirements"as set forth in the case of Grossman Holdings Ltd v. Hourihan, 414 So 2d 1037 (Fla.1982).This defense should be stricken because Bradford fails to providethe requisite specificity and particularity so as to reasonablyinform the Association of what the defense is proposed in order to providethe Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and prepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Indeed, BRADFORD merely cites to a case without any factual basis as to why the Association's damages should be limited to the "requirements" set forth in Grossman, or what those requirements are. Accordingly, the defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively, BRADFORD should be requiredto pleadwith greater particularity. 21. Eighth Affirmative Defense (Comparative Fault/Fabre): This defense alleges that Association's claim is barred by the doctrine of comparative fault ofpartiesand non-parties (includingthe Association).In support of this defense BRADFORD generallycites to Florida Statutes (§768.81)and the case Fabre v. Marin. BRADFORD then lists over thirty-two(32) entities without specifically statingultimate facts as to the negligenceof each party and/or non- party and in some instances fails to specifically identifynon-parties. As such, BRADFORD fails 7 Case No. CACE 20-017530 to providethe requisitespecificity and particularity so as to reasonablyinform the Association of what the defense is proposed in order to providethe Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and prepare evidence as requiredby Bowar and Nash. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Accordingly, this defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively, BRADFORD should be requiredto pleadwith greater particularity. 22. Ninth Affirmative Defense (Association's Negligence): This affirmative defense allegesthat "the Association was guiltyof negligence,which negligencewas either the sole proximate cause of the allegationsin the Complaint, or, in the alternative,contributed thereto. As a result,the Association is therefore either barred from recovery or, in the alternative, any damages awarded againstBradford should be reduced pursuant to the Ruel of Comparative Negligence.").This defense should be stricken because Bradford fails to provide the requisite specificity and particularity so as to reasonablyinform the Association of what the defense is proposed in order to provide the Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and prepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Indeed,BRADFORD does not state with particularity what, if any, allegednegligentconduct by the association caused the allegationsin the operativecomplaint.Moreover, this defense is redundant (seeAffirmative Defense #8).Accordingly,the defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively, BRADFORD should be requiredto plead with greater particularity. 23. Twelfth Affirmative Defense (Betterment): This defense alleges that Association's claim is barred by the doctrine ofBetterment. First,this defense should be stricken because BRADFORD fails to provide the requisitespecificityand particularity so as to reasonably inform the Association of what the defense is proposed in order to provide the Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and prepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537 8 Case No. CACE 20-017530 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Second, this defense is entirelyconclusory.Id. BRADFORD does not specifically articulate what, if any, allegeddamages for costs constitute a betterment. Accordingly, the defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively, BRADFORD should be requiredto pleadwith greater particularity. 24. Thirteenth Affirmative Defense (Slavindoctrine): This defense conclusively cites to the "Slavin Rule" as a basis for barringthe Association's claims. Slavin v. Kay, 108 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1959) and its progeny are only applicableto personalinjuryactions brought by third parties, not property owners. See Slavin v. Kay, 108 So. 2d 462, 467 (Fla.1958);see also Mcintosh v. ProgressiveDesign and Eng'g Inc., 166 So. 3d 823, 829 (Fla.4th DCA 2015) (personalrepresentative brought action followingdeath of driver resultingfrom defective traffic signals);Transp. Eng'g, Inc. v. Cruz, 152 So. 3d 37 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (personal representative of deceased passenger'sestate brought action related to death followingimpact with uncushioned guardrailon the Florida Turnpike);Plaza v. Fisher Dev., Inc.,971 So. 2d 918, 924 (Fla.3d DCA 2007) (employee injured from fall from conveyor system installed at employer'sstore);Gonsalves v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 859 So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Fla.4th DCA 2003) ("The slavin doctrine considers the respectiveliability of an owner and contractor, after the owner has resumed possession of the construction, for injuriesto a third person for negligenceof the contractor in the construction of the improvement.");Fla. Dept. of Transp.v. CapelettiBros., Inc.,743 So. 2d 150 (Fla.3d DCA 1999) (motoristinjuredin accident related to missing guardrailon highway). There are no claims of personal injury related to the construction at issue;therefore,Slavin is inapplicable. Accordingly,the defense fails and should be stricken. 25. Fourteenth Affirmative Defense (Waiver, Estoppel, and Laches): This 9 Case No. CACE 20-017530 defense conclusivelyallegesthat Association's claim is barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel,and laches. First,this defense should be stricken because BRADFORD fails to provide the requisitespecificity and particularity so as to reasonablyinform the Association ofwhat the defenses are proposed in order to providethe Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and prepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Second, this defense (which in fact is 3 defenses)is entirelyconclusory.Id. Accordingly,the defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively, BRADFORD should be requiredto plead with greater particularity. 26. Fifteenth Affirmative Defense (Intervening/Superseding Cause): BRADFORD allegesthat intervening/supersedingactions or other persons, or entities constitute interveningand/or supersedingcauses ofPlaintiff's allegeddamages without specifically stating ultimate facts as to the negligence of each persons, or entity,and/or non-party. As such, BRADFORD fails to provide the requisitespecificityand particularityso as to reasonably inform the Association of what the defense is proposed in order to providethe Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and prepare evidence as requiredby Bowar and Nash. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Accordingly, this defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively, BRADFORDshould be required to plead with greater particularity. 27. Nineteenth Affirmative Defense (Standing): This defense alleges that Association's claim is barred or limited to the extent the Association does not have standingto bringthese claims. First,this defense should be stricken because BRADFORD fails to provide the requisite specificity and particularity so as to reasonablyinform the Association of what the defense is proposed in order to provide the Association with a fair opportunityto meet it and 10 Case No. CACE 20-017530 prepare evidence. Bowmar Instrument, 537 So.2d at 563; Cady, 528 So. 2d at 138. Second, this defense is entirelyconclusorybecause BRADFORD does not identifywhat specificclaims are the Association is barred from bringing.Id. Accordingly,the defense fails and should be stricken or alternatively, CHM should be requiredto pleadwith greater particularity. WHEREFORE, the Association respectfullyrequests this Court strike BRADFORD' s aforementioned Affirmative Defenses, or in the alternative,request a more definite statement of same and grant such other and further relief this Court deems justand proper. Dated: December 8, 2021. Respectfullysubmitted, BALL JANIK LLP Miami Tower - Suite 3310 100 S.E. Second Street Miami, FL 33131 Main: 786-770-8665 Direct: 786-770-8650 Fax: 407-902-2105 By: /s/ ElijahC. Waring Jr. PHILLIP E. JOSEPH, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 1000368 EVAN SMALL, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 57306 GABRIEL Z. COELHO, ESQ. Florida Bar. No. 047685 ELIJAH C. WARING, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 1008326 pjoseph@balljanik. com esmall@balljanik. com gcoelho@balljanik. com ewaring@balljanik.com ngracey@balljanik. com lcollado@balljanik.com cbetancourt@balljanik. com com orlandodocket@balljanik. com 11 Case No. CACE 20-017530 Counselfor Plaintiff, Sage Beach Condominium Association, Inc. 12 Case No. CACE 20-017530 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been electronically furnished to all partiesof record via the Florida Courts E-filingPortal System on this 8th day of December 2021. By: /s/ ElijahC. Waring Jr. GABRIEL Z. COELHO, ESQ. ELIJAH C. WARING JR., ESQ. SERVICE LIST GARY F. BAUMANN, ESQ. JEREMY C. DANIELS, ESQ. ELIZABETH M. WHITE, ESQ. CHRISTAL R. TOMAC, ESQ. Baumann, Gant & Keeley,P.A. Daniels,Rodriguez,Berkeley,Daniels 1401 E. Broward Boulevard, Suite 200 & Cruz, P.A. Fort Lauderdale, FL 333 01 4000 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 800 T. 954-440-4611 Coral Gables, FL 33146 F. 954-440-4613 T. 305-488-7988 gbaumann@baumannlegal.com F. 305-488-7978 ewhite@baumannlegal.com jdaniels@drbdc-law.com dcaleca@baumannlegal.com service-jed@drbdc-law. com ngloria@baumannlegal.com dortiz@drbdc-law. com Counsel for PMG Driftwood LLC and ctomac@drbdc-law. com Glenewinkel Construction Company LLC service-crt@drbdc-law. com vmedina@drbdc-law.com Counsel for Urvanx Inc. JOSH M. RUBENS, ESQ. Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen SANAZ ALEMPOUR, ESQ. & Levine, P.L. Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. CitigroupCenter, 277t?1 Lakeside Floor Office Center, Suite 500 201 South Biscayne Blvd. 600 North Pine Island Road Miami, FL 33131 Plantation,FL 33324 T. 305-379-9000 T. 954-343-3902 jrubens@klugerkaplan.com F. 954-474-7979 Counsel for PMG Driftwood LLC Sanaz.alempour@csklegal.com Ian.calder@csklegal.com SCOTT L. BUSCEMI, ESQ. Toni.ortiz@csklegal.com Property Markets Group Counsel for Calvin Giordano & Associates T: 305.384.6745 Inc. sbuscemi@propertymg.com General Counsel for PMG Driftwood LLC 13 Case No. CACE 20-017530 RYAN M. CHARLSON, ESQ. MANUEL A. RODRIGUEZ, ESQ. GEORGE R. TRUITT, ESQ. Trust Counsel ANTHONY LOPEZ, ESQ 357 Almeria Ave, Suite 103 Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Coral Gables, FL 33134 Suite 1400 T. 305-707-7126 9150 S. Dadeland Boulevard mannyar@gmail.com Miami, Florida 33156 rodriguez@trustcounsel.com T. 305-350-5300 marenco@trustcounsel.com F. 305-373-2294 dulce@trustcounsel.com E. Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com Counsel for Shamrock Engineering Corp. George.Truitt@csklegal.com Anthony.Lopez@csklegal.com Nicole.Kaufman@csklegal.com Susana.Rodriguez@csklegal.com Judith.Gracia@csklegal.com Lisa.Heftel@csklegal.com Construction.FTLW@csklegal.com Counselfor CHM Structural EngineersLLC 14 EXHIBIT A Filing# 138802411 E-Filed 1 1/18/2021 12:59:45 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 CONSOLIDATE CASE NO.: SAGE BEACH CONDOMINIUM CACE 20-017790 ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, V PMG DRIFTWOOD, LLC; GLENEWINKEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC; URVANX, INC.; SHAMROCK ENGINEERING CORP.; CALVIN, GIORDANO & ASSOCIATES, INC.; CHM STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, LLC; ARMSTRONG AIR CONDITION & HEATING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC.; ASSOCIATED STEEL AND ALUMINUM, INC.; B. CODY PLUMBING, INC.; BRADFORD PRODUCTS, LLC; BUILDING ENVELOPE SYSTEMS, INC.; CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES, INC.; DUN-RITE MARBLE & GRANITE, INC.; EAST COAST CONTRACTORS SUPPLY, INC.; FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC.; FINE LINE ELECTRIC, INC.; FLOOD PANEL, LLC; HOLLYWOOD STONE, INC.; J.L.K. CAULKING AND COATINGS COMPANY; LUSHLIFE, LLC; NEW DOOR INSTALLATION CO.; NEXT DOOR DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; R&L PAINTING, INC.; ROSEN MATERIALS, LLC; SECURITY INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS, INC.; SOUTHERN COAST ENTERPRISES, INC.; SOUTH DADE LIGHTING, INC.; SOUTHERN FIRE CONTROL, INC.; TEKTON CONSTRUCTION, CORP.; and ZARRELLA CONSTRUCTION, INC. Defendants PMG DRIFTWOOD, LLC Plaintiff, V SAGE BEACH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. Defendant. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 DEFENDANT, BRADFORD PRODUCTS, LLC'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Defendant, Bradford Products, LLC ("Bradford"),by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby responds to Plaintiff, Sage Beach Condominium Association, Inc.'s First Amended Complaint for Damages as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE 1- Denied. 2- Denied. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. 4- Admitted. 5. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 6. Admitted for jurisdictionaland venue purposes only. 7- Denied. PARTIES 8. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 9. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 10. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 11. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 12. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 13. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 14. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 15. Without knowledge, therefore denied. Page I 2 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 16. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 17. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 18. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 19. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 20. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 21. Admitted. 22. Denied. 23. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 24. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 25. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 26. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 27. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 28. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 29. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 30. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 31. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 32. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 33. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 34. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 35. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 36. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 37. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 38. Without knowledge, therefore denied. Page I 3 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 39. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 40. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 41. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 42. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 43. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 44. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 45. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 46. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 47. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 48. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 49. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 50. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 51. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 52. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 53. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 54. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 55. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 56. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 57. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 58. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 59. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 60. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 61. Without knowledge, therefore denied. Page I 4 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 62. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 63. Without knowledge, therefore denied. BACKGROUND FACTS AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 64. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 65. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 66. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 67. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 68. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 69. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 70. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 71. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 72. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 73. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 74. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 75. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 76. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 77. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 78. Without knowledge, therefore denied. 79. Without knowledge, therefore denied. a. Without knowledge, therefore denied. b. Without knowledge, therefore denied. c. Without knowledge, therefore denied. d. Without knowledge, therefore denied. Page I 5 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 e. Without knowledge, therefore denied. f- Without knowledge, therefore denied. g. Without knowledge, therefore denied. h. Without knowledge, therefore denied. Without knowledge, therefore denied. j Without knowledge, therefore denied. k. Without knowledge, therefore denied. ' Without knowledge, therefore denied. m. Without knowledge, therefore denied. n. Without knowledge, therefore denied. o. Without knowledge, therefore denied. p. Without knowledge, therefore denied. q. Without knowledge, therefore denied. r- Without knowledge, therefore denied. S Denied. t. Without knowledge, therefore denied. u. Without knowledge, therefore denied. v. Without knowledge, therefore denied. w. Without knowledge, therefore denied. x. Without knowledge, therefore denied. y. Without knowledge, therefore denied. z. Without knowledge, therefore denied. aa. Without knowledge, therefore denied. Page I 6 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 80. Denied. 81. Denied. 82. Denied. 83. Denied. 84. Denied. 85. Denied. 86. Denied. 87. Denied. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE (Against PMG) 88. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 89. - 97. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 89-97 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT - Il VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE (Against PMG) 98. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 99. - 107. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 99-107 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. Page I 7 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 COUNT Ill- BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY (Against PMG) 108. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 109. - 114. The allegations set for in Paragraphs 109-114 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT IV - UNJUST ENRICHMENT (Against PMG) 115. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 116. - 123. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 1 16-123 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT V - NEGLIGENCE (Against GCC) 124. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 125. - 133. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 1 25-133 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. Page I 8 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 COUNT VI - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE (Against GCC) 134. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 135. - 143. The allegations set for in Paragraphs 1 35-143 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT VII- BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY (Against GCC) 144. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 145. - 150. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 145-150 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT Vlll- NEGLIGENCE/PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE (Against URVANX) 151. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 152. - 155. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 152-155 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. Page I 9 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 COUNT IX BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS (Against URVANX) 156. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 157. - 162. The allegations set for in Paragraphs 157-162 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT X - NEGLIGENCE/PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE (Against SHAMROCK) 163. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 164. - 167. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 1 64-167 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XI BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS (Against SHAMROCK) 168. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 169. - 174. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 169-174 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. Page I 10 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 COUNT XII- NEGLIGENCE/PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE (Against CG&A) 175. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 176. - 179. The allegations set for in Paragraphs 1 76-179 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XIII- BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS (Against CG&A) 180. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 181. - 186. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 1 81-186 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XIV - NEGLIGENCE/PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE (Against CHM) 187. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 188. - 191. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 188-191 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. Page I 11 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 COUNT XV - BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS (Against CHM) 192. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 193. - 198. The allegations set for in Paragraphs 1 93-198 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XVI - NEGLIGENCE (Against ARMSTRONG) 199. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 200. - 209. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 200-209 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XVII- VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE (Against ARMSTRONG) 210. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 211. - 219. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 211-219 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. Page I 12 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 COUNT XVIII- NEGLIGENCE (Against ASA) 220. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 221. - 230. The allegations set for in Paragraphs 221-230 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XIX - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE (Against ASA) 231. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 232. - 240. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 232-240 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XX - NEGLIGENCE (Against B. CODY) 241. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 242. - 251. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 242-251 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. Page I 13 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 COUNT XX1 - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE (Against B. CODY) 252. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 253. - 261. The allegations set for in Paragraphs 253-261 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XX11- NEGLIGENCE (Against BRADFORD) 262. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 263. Denied. 264. Denied. 265. Denied. 266. Denied. 267. Denied. 268. Denied. 269. Denied. 270. Denied. a- Denied. b- Denied. C Denied. d- Denied. Page I 14 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 e- Denied. f- Denied. g. Denied. 271. Denied. 272. Denied. COUNT XX111- VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE (Against BRADFORD) 273. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 274. Denied. 275. Denied. 276. Denied. 277. Denied. 278. Denied. 279. Denied. 280. Denied. a- Denied b- Denied. C Denied. d- Denied. e- Denied. f- Denied. g. Denied. 281. Denied. Page I 15 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 282. Denied. COUNT XXIV - NEGLIGENCE (Against BES) 283. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 284. - 293. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 284-293 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XXV - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE (Against BES) 294. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 295. - 303. The allegations set for in Paragraphs 295-303 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XXVI - NEGLIGENCE (Against CS) 304. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 305. - 314. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 305-314 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. Page I 16 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 COUNT XXVII- VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE (Against CS) 315. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 316. - 324. The allegations set for in Paragraphs 316-324 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XXVIII- NEGLIGENCE (Against DUN-RITE) 325. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 326. - 335. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 326-335 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XXIX - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE (Against DUN-RITE) 336. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 337. - 345. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 337-345 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. Page I 17 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 COUNT XXX - NEGLIGENCE (Against ECCS) 346. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 347. - 356. The allegations set for in Paragraphs 347-356 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XXX1 - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE (Against ECCS) 357. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 358. - 366. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 358-366 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XXX11- NEGLIGENCE (Against FERGUSON) 367. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 368. - 377. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 368-377 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. Page I 18 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 COUNT XXX111- VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE (Against FERGUSON) 378. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 379. - 387. The allegations set for in Paragraphs 379-387 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XXXIV - NEGLIGENCE (Against FLE) 388. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 389. - 398. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 389-398 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XXXV - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE (Against FLE) 399. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 400. - 408. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 400-408 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. Page I 19 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 COUNT XXXVI - NEGLIGENCE (Against FLOOD PANEL) 409. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 410. - 419. The allegations set for in Paragraphs 410-419 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XXXVII- VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE (Against FLOOD PANEL) 420. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 421. - 429. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 421-429 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required.To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. COUNT XXXVIII- NEGLIGENCE (Against HOLLYWOOD STONE) 430. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as iffullyset forth herein. 431. - 440. The allegationsset for in Paragraphs 431-440 of the Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Damages are not directed at Bradford and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is required from Bradford, the allegations are denied. Page I 20 COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD- SUITE 1400- P.O. BOX 569015- MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256- (305) 350- 5300- (305) 373-2294 FAX CASE NO. CACE 20-017530 COUNT XXXIX - VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE (Against HOLLYWOOD STONE) 441. Bradford realleges and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -87 as