Preview
Filing # 128261647 E-Filed 06/07/2021 05:30:21 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
17th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR BROWARD COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583
HEATHER GRANT,
Plaintiff,
V.
DAVID VADILLO & LYFT, INC.,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT, DAVID VADILLO'S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant, DAVID VADILLO, by and through his undersigned
counsel, hereby responds to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff, HEATHER
GRANT, and states:
1. Without knowledge and therefore denied.
2. Without knowledge and therefore denied.
3. Without knowledge and therefore denied.
4. Without knowledge and therefore denied.
5. Denied.
6. Without knowledge and therefore denied.
QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA ATTORNEYSAT LAW
.
9300 SOUTH DADEIAND BOULEVARD, 4'M FLOOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 * TEL: (305) 670-1101
***
FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 06/07/2021 05:30:20 PM.****
Grant v. Vadillo & Lyft, Inc.
Case No.: CACE-21-009583
7. Without knowledge and therefore denied.
8. Without knowledge and therefore denied.
9. Without knowledge and therefore denied.
COUNT I -
CLAIM AGAINST VADILLO
10. Defendant re-alleges his responses to paragraphs 1-9.
11. Without knowledge and therefore denied.
12. Denied, including all subparagraphs.
13. Denied.
COUNT I -
CLAIM AGAINST LYFT
14. Defendant re-alleges his responses to paragraphs 1 -9
15-21. The allegations contained in these paragraphs are not directed
to this Defendant. As such, this Defendant denies each and every
allegation contained in these paragraphs and demands strict proof thereof.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter judgment in
favor of the Defendant and award the Defendant all taxable costs as
permitted by Florida law, and such other relief as the Court deems just and
equitable.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Defendant is entitled to a credit or set-
off in this action for any of Plaintiffs damages for which any collateral
2
QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA ATTORNEYSAT LAW
.
9300 SOUTH DADEIAND BOULEVARD, 4'M FLOOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 * TEL: (305) 670-1101
Grant v. Vadillo & Lyft, Inc.
Case No.: CACE-21-009583
source benefits are paid or are payable pursuant to Section 768.76, F/a.
Stat., and through any other statutory or contractual basis under Florida
law.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Plaintiff was negligent and such negligence proximately caused
or contributed to the accident and damages complained of. As such, the
Plaintiff is barred by the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence from recovery
herein to the extent of such negligence.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff failed to mitigate the damages and, as such, Plaintiff's
recovery, if any, should be reduced by the amount the damages
complained of could have been Iessened.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The sole or contributing proximate cause of the damages complained
of was the intervening, superseding, independent, or otherwise negligent
acts of others for whom the Defendant is not responsible.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pursuant to Section 768.81, F/a. Stat., the award of damages to
Plaintiff, if any, must be apportioned in accordance with the relative
responsibility of all other parties to this action.
3
QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA ATTORNEYSAT LAW
.
9300 SOUTH DADEIAND BOULEVARD, 4'M FLOOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 * TEL: (305) 670-1101
Grant v. Vadillo & Lyft, Inc.
Case No.: CACE-21-009583
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant hereby gives notice of the intent, pursuant to Section
768.041, Florida Statutes, to rely upon the set-off created by any
settlements with any other defendant and/or non-parties, in satisfaction of
the same damages for which Plaintiff is suing.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's injuries, if any, were solely the result of pre-existing
conditions, or otherwise resulted from intervening, supervening, or
independent causes.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant's right to any offset and credit for monies already paid or
payable on Plaintiff's behalf includes, but is not limited to, all setoffs
described in Goble v. Frohman, 901 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2005).
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The injuries suffered by Plaintiff, if any, were the result of an
unavoidable accident and were not caused by the negligence, fault or lack
of reasonable care on the part of the Defendant.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If Plaintiff's PIP carrier has elected to limit reimbursements pursuant
to F.S. § 627.736(5), Defendant further states that the person providing
4
QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA ATTORNEYSAT LAW
.
9300 SOUTH DADEIAND BOULEVARD, 4'M FLOOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 * TEL: (305) 670-1101
Grant v. Vadillo & Lyft, Inc.
Case No.: CACE-21-009583
such services, supplies, or care may not bill or attempt to collect from the
insured Plaintiff any amount in excess of such limits, except for amounts
that are not covered by the insured's personal injury protection coverage
due to the co-insurance amount or maximum policy limits.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff had available for use a
seatbelt which, had it been utilized, would have substantially reduced or
prevented the damages claimed, and such failure to use the seatbelt
constituted negligence and the Plaintiffs recovery must be reduced
accordingly.
-ELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Plaintiff has failed to meet the minimum threshold of the Florida
No Fault Threshold Statute and is subject to the limitations of such statute.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any recovery by the Plaintiff herein should be diminished by the
amounts of all benefits which Plaintiff has received from collateral sources
as defined in Florida Statutes § 627.736(3).
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff's medical bills were not reasonable and/or necessary or the
billing is excessive. Additionally or alternatively, the treatment and/or billing
5
QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA ATTORNEYSAT LAW
.
9300 SOUTH DADEIAND BOULEVARD, 4'M FLOOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 * TEL: (305) 670-1101
Grant v. Vadillo & Lyft, Inc.
Case No.: CACE-21-009583
was not causally related to the accident, and/or was a result of medical
providers engaging in excessive billing and/or treatment that was not
related to the subject incident.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
At the time of the incident described in the complaint, Defendant was
operating a motor vehicle as a Transportation Network Driver (TNC Driver)
pursuant to Section 627.748, Florida Statutes, and is entitled to all
defenses and protection afforded by such statute.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
was furnished via the E-Filing Portal or E-Service this 7th day of June,
2021 to:
Plaintiff's Counsel:
Jon A. Zepnick, Esq.
Ansel & Miller, LLC
1939 Tyler Street
Hollywood, FL 33020
Tel.: 954-922-9100
Fax: 954-822-9176
jonzepnick@anselmi Ier.com
makethecal 103@ao.com
rshields@anselm Iler.com
eansel@anselmil er.com
6
QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA ATTORNEYSAT LAW
.
9300 SOUTH DADEIAND BOULEVARD, 4'M FLOOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 * TEL: (305) 670-1101
Grant v. Vadillo & Lyft, Inc.
Case No.: CACE-21-009583
/s/ George L. Fernandez
GEORGE L. FERNANDEZ, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 0002097
JAIME E. CAMPOS, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 685348
Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.
Attorneys for DefendantVadillo
9300 South Dadeland Boulevard
4th Floor
Miami, Florida 33156
Tel.: 305-670-1101
Fax: 305-670-1161
jcampos@QPWBLAW.com
bfetokakis-fernandez@QPWBLAW.com
7
QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA ATTORNEYSAT LAW
.
9300 SOUTH DADEIAND BOULEVARD, 4'M FLOOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 * TEL: (305) 670-1101
Preview
Filing # 128261647 E-Filed 06/07/2021 05:30:21 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583 HEATHER GRANT, Plaintiff, V. DAVID VADILLO & LYFT, INC., Defendants. DEFENDANT, DAVID VADILLO'S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant, DAVID VADILLO, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby responds to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff, HEATHER GRANT, and states: 1. Without knowledge and therefore denied. 2. Without knowledge and therefore denied. 3. Without knowledge and therefore denied. 4. Without knowledge and therefore denied. 5. Denied. 6. Without knowledge and therefore denied. QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA ATTORNEYSAT LAW . 9300 SOUTH DADEIAND BOULEVARD, 4'M FLOOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 * TEL: (305) 670-1101 *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 06/07/2021 05:30:20 PM.**** Grant v. Vadillo & Lyft, Inc. Case No.: CACE-21-009583 7. Without knowledge and therefore denied. 8. Without knowledge and therefore denied. 9. Without knowledge and therefore denied. COUNT I - CLAIM AGAINST VADILLO 10. Defendant re-alleges his responses to paragraphs 1-9. 11. Without knowledge and therefore denied. 12. Denied, including all subparagraphs. 13. Denied. COUNT I - CLAIM AGAINST LYFT 14. Defendant re-alleges his responses to paragraphs 1 -9 15-21. The allegations contained in these paragraphs are not directed to this Defendant. As such, this Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in these paragraphs and demands strict proof thereof. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and award the Defendant all taxable costs as permitted by Florida law, and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Defendant is entitled to a credit or set- off in this action for any of Plaintiffs damages for which any collateral 2 QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA ATTORNEYSAT LAW . 9300 SOUTH DADEIAND BOULEVARD, 4'M FLOOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 * TEL: (305) 670-1101 Grant v. Vadillo & Lyft, Inc. Case No.: CACE-21-009583 source benefits are paid or are payable pursuant to Section 768.76, F/a. Stat., and through any other statutory or contractual basis under Florida law. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Plaintiff was negligent and such negligence proximately caused or contributed to the accident and damages complained of. As such, the Plaintiff is barred by the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence from recovery herein to the extent of such negligence. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff failed to mitigate the damages and, as such, Plaintiff's recovery, if any, should be reduced by the amount the damages complained of could have been Iessened. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The sole or contributing proximate cause of the damages complained of was the intervening, superseding, independent, or otherwise negligent acts of others for whom the Defendant is not responsible. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pursuant to Section 768.81, F/a. Stat., the award of damages to Plaintiff, if any, must be apportioned in accordance with the relative responsibility of all other parties to this action. 3 QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA ATTORNEYSAT LAW . 9300 SOUTH DADEIAND BOULEVARD, 4'M FLOOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 * TEL: (305) 670-1101 Grant v. Vadillo & Lyft, Inc. Case No.: CACE-21-009583 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant hereby gives notice of the intent, pursuant to Section 768.041, Florida Statutes, to rely upon the set-off created by any settlements with any other defendant and/or non-parties, in satisfaction of the same damages for which Plaintiff is suing. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's injuries, if any, were solely the result of pre-existing conditions, or otherwise resulted from intervening, supervening, or independent causes. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defendant's right to any offset and credit for monies already paid or payable on Plaintiff's behalf includes, but is not limited to, all setoffs described in Goble v. Frohman, 901 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2005). NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The injuries suffered by Plaintiff, if any, were the result of an unavoidable accident and were not caused by the negligence, fault or lack of reasonable care on the part of the Defendant. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If Plaintiff's PIP carrier has elected to limit reimbursements pursuant to F.S. § 627.736(5), Defendant further states that the person providing 4 QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA ATTORNEYSAT LAW . 9300 SOUTH DADEIAND BOULEVARD, 4'M FLOOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 * TEL: (305) 670-1101 Grant v. Vadillo & Lyft, Inc. Case No.: CACE-21-009583 such services, supplies, or care may not bill or attempt to collect from the insured Plaintiff any amount in excess of such limits, except for amounts that are not covered by the insured's personal injury protection coverage due to the co-insurance amount or maximum policy limits. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff had available for use a seatbelt which, had it been utilized, would have substantially reduced or prevented the damages claimed, and such failure to use the seatbelt constituted negligence and the Plaintiffs recovery must be reduced accordingly. -ELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Plaintiff has failed to meet the minimum threshold of the Florida No Fault Threshold Statute and is subject to the limitations of such statute. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Any recovery by the Plaintiff herein should be diminished by the amounts of all benefits which Plaintiff has received from collateral sources as defined in Florida Statutes § 627.736(3). FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff's medical bills were not reasonable and/or necessary or the billing is excessive. Additionally or alternatively, the treatment and/or billing 5 QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA ATTORNEYSAT LAW . 9300 SOUTH DADEIAND BOULEVARD, 4'M FLOOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 * TEL: (305) 670-1101 Grant v. Vadillo & Lyft, Inc. Case No.: CACE-21-009583 was not causally related to the accident, and/or was a result of medical providers engaging in excessive billing and/or treatment that was not related to the subject incident. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE At the time of the incident described in the complaint, Defendant was operating a motor vehicle as a Transportation Network Driver (TNC Driver) pursuant to Section 627.748, Florida Statutes, and is entitled to all defenses and protection afforded by such statute. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via the E-Filing Portal or E-Service this 7th day of June, 2021 to: Plaintiff's Counsel: Jon A. Zepnick, Esq. Ansel & Miller, LLC 1939 Tyler Street Hollywood, FL 33020 Tel.: 954-922-9100 Fax: 954-822-9176 jonzepnick@anselmi Ier.com makethecal 103@ao.com rshields@anselm Iler.com eansel@anselmil er.com 6 QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA ATTORNEYSAT LAW . 9300 SOUTH DADEIAND BOULEVARD, 4'M FLOOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 * TEL: (305) 670-1101 Grant v. Vadillo & Lyft, Inc. Case No.: CACE-21-009583 /s/ George L. Fernandez GEORGE L. FERNANDEZ, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 0002097 JAIME E. CAMPOS, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 685348 Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. Attorneys for DefendantVadillo 9300 South Dadeland Boulevard 4th Floor Miami, Florida 33156 Tel.: 305-670-1101 Fax: 305-670-1161 jcampos@QPWBLAW.com bfetokakis-fernandez@QPWBLAW.com 7 QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA ATTORNEYSAT LAW . 9300 SOUTH DADEIAND BOULEVARD, 4'M FLOOR, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33156 * TEL: (305) 670-1101