Preview
Filing # 162651162 E-Filed 12/08/2022 12:28:14 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA
ANGELA JORDAN & KETERYNA
SHEREMET CASE NO. 16-2022-CA-006036
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
/
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMES NOW the Defendant, SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, by and
through its undersigned counsel, and files this Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Demand for
Jury Trial, and responds to the Complaint, paragraph by paragraph as follows.
1 Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.
2 Admitted.
3 Admitted to the extent that a Homeowner’s Policy was issued to Plaintiffs bearing
Policy No. P000293979 with effective dates of coverage from August 26, 2019
through August 26, 2020, subject to the provisions, conditions, limitations, and
exclusions of the policy for the property located at 1257 Jones Road, Jacksonville
FL 32220. Defendant denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’
Complaint.
Admitted that a date of loss of August 4, 2020 was reported on May 30, 2022 for
alleged wind storm damage. Defendant denies all remaining allegations in
Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Admitted that a loss was reported, otherwise denied and strict proof of the
remaining allegations are demanded.
Denied based on the policy coverage, exclusions and provisions.
Denied and strict proof of the allegations in this paragraph are demanded.
ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 12/08/2022 01:11:29 PM
8. Defendant denies that it is liable for attorney’s fees and costs and demands strict
proof thereof. Defendant denies the remaining allegations and/or inferences
contained therein and demands strict proof thereof.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, demands
judgment against the Plaintiffs and that Plaintiffs take nothing through this cause of action and
that Defendant be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the defense of this action.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
The Defendant, SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, asserts the following
affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint but does not assume a burden of proof on any of
the defenses, except as required by applicable law with respect to the particular defenses
asserted. Defendant reserves its right to assert other affirmative defenses, withdraw, or modify
its affirmative defenses, or otherwise amend this Answer based upon the discovery of
additional facts or evidence. Additionally, these affirmative defenses are pleaded in the
alternative, and do not constitute an admission of liability by Defendant.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As its First Affirmative Defense, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's recovery, if any, is
barred and/or limited as some or all of the Plaintiff's alleged damage is not covered by the
Policy insofar as the Defendant’s investigation revealed no weather-related damage to the
roofing system. The observed damages to the roof resulted from manufacturing defects,
mechanical damage poor workmanship, improper installation, prior repairs and normal aging
and wear and tear, which is not covered under the policy. Interior water staining was found to
begin after the policy period and is therefore not covered under the Policy. In support,
Defendant points to the following Policy language:
PERILS INSURED AGAINST
COVERAGEA - DWELLING and COVERAGE B - OTHER STRUCTURES
We insure against risk of direct loss to property described in Coverages A and B only if
that loss is a physical loss to property. We do not insure, however, for loss:
2. Caused by:
h. (1) Wear and tear, marring, deterioration
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As its Second Affirmative Defense, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s recovery, if any,
is barred and/or limited as some or all of the Plaintiff's alleged damage is not covered by the
Policy insofar as the Defendant’s investigation did not reflect any evidenced of storm or wind
related damage. Instead, the investigation reflected that the alleged damage resulted from
improper maintenance, which is not covered under the Policy. In support, Defendant points to
the following Policy language:
GENERAL EXCLUSIONS
2. We do not insure for loss described in Coverage A and B caused by any of the
following. However, any ensuring loss to property described in Coverage A and B not
excluded or excepted in this policy is covered.
c. Faulty, inadequate or defective;
(4) Maintenance
of part or all of any property whether on or off the Described Location.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As its Third Affirmative Defense, Defendant asserts it is entitled to a set-off of all
applicable deductibles related to the claim at issue in this action under policy number
P000293979. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of policy number P000293979, Plaintiff has
an applicable deductible of $1,000.00 for all perils insured against. Any damage, to the extent
it exists, should be reduced by the $1,000.00 applicable deductible, pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the Policy.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As its Fourth Affirmative Defense, Defendant affirmatively asserts that the
pursuant to the terms and conditions of Policy No. P000032375, Defendant asserts that
Plaintiff's damages as precluded, limited, excluded, or otherwise barred by the limited water
damage endorsement language. Subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and Florida
law interpreting the same. The limit of liability provided under the policy $10,000.00.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As its Fifth Affirmative Defense, Defendant affirmatively asserts that the claimed
damages resulted from each insured's neglect to take ordinary care to prevent damage from
occurring. In support, Defendant points to the following Policy language:
GENERAL EXCLUSIONS
We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss
is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any
sequence to the loss.
e. Neglect, meaning neglect of the "insured" to use all reasonable means to save
and preserve property at and after the time of a loss.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As its Six Affirmative Defense, Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs’ recovery, if any, is
barred and/or limited since any potential damage to the insured property’s roof did not exceed
the 25% required threshold to apply the provisions specified in Fla. Stat. 708.1.1 “Reroofing,”
in the Florida Build Code — Existing Building.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As its Seventh Affirmative Defense, Defendant affirmatively asserts that Plaintiffs
failed to give prompt notice of the alleged claim to Defendant as outlined in Section I-
Conditions. 2. Your Duties After Loss. The sentence “In case of a loss to covered property, you
must see that the following are done:” is deleted and replaced by the following: In case of a
loss to covered property, we have no duty to provide coverage under this Policy if the failure to
comply with the following duties is prejudicial to us. These duties must be performed either by
you, an "insured" seeking coverage, or a representative of either: Under SECTION I-
CONDITIONS 2.a. is deleted and replaced by the following: a. Give prompt notice to us or our
agent; of the policy controls. Plaintiff's failure to provide prompt notice prejudiced
Defendant’s ability to adequately asses the claim.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
As its Eighth Affirmative Defense, Defendant affirmatively asserts that the policy is
clear and unambiguous and as such, the plan meaning of the policy controls.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Security First reserves its right to modify any of the foregoing defenses asserted with
additional affirmative defenses during this lawsuit, as discovery is ongoing and in its initial
stages.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant, SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, demands trial by jury on
all issues triable by a jury.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The document contains no confidential or sensitive information or that any such
confidential or sensitive language has been properly protected by complying with the
provisions of Rule 2.420 and 2.425.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer and
Affirmative Defenses has been furnished by Electronic Filing to Attorney for Plaintiffs, using
the Florida Courts e-Filing Portal, which will send an automatic e-mail message to the listed
parties registered with the e-Filing Portal system on the 8 day of December, 2022.
Attorney for Plaintiff
David R. Heil, Esq. FBN: 435422
DAVID R. HEIL, P.A.
2324 Lee Road
Winter Park, FL 32789
(407) 599-2100
Email: pleadings@heil-law.com david@heil-law.com
By/s/ David. G. Marcus.
David G. Marcus, Esquire
1001 Broadway Avenue
Ormond Beach, Florida 32174
Florida Bar No. 1017428
Primary E-Mail: David.Marcus@securityfirstflorida.com
Secondary E-Mail: Cathy.Myers@securityfirstflorida.com
Alternate E-Mail: Veronica.Hatch@securityfirstflorida.com
Attorney for Defendant
SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY
Preview
Filing # 162651162 E-Filed 12/08/2022 12:28:14 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA ANGELA JORDAN & KETERYNA SHEREMET CASE NO. 16-2022-CA-006036 Plaintiffs, vs. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. / DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMES NOW the Defendant, SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through its undersigned counsel, and files this Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Demand for Jury Trial, and responds to the Complaint, paragraph by paragraph as follows. 1 Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. 2 Admitted. 3 Admitted to the extent that a Homeowner’s Policy was issued to Plaintiffs bearing Policy No. P000293979 with effective dates of coverage from August 26, 2019 through August 26, 2020, subject to the provisions, conditions, limitations, and exclusions of the policy for the property located at 1257 Jones Road, Jacksonville FL 32220. Defendant denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Admitted that a date of loss of August 4, 2020 was reported on May 30, 2022 for alleged wind storm damage. Defendant denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Admitted that a loss was reported, otherwise denied and strict proof of the remaining allegations are demanded. Denied based on the policy coverage, exclusions and provisions. Denied and strict proof of the allegations in this paragraph are demanded. ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 12/08/2022 01:11:29 PM 8. Defendant denies that it is liable for attorney’s fees and costs and demands strict proof thereof. Defendant denies the remaining allegations and/or inferences contained therein and demands strict proof thereof. WHEREFORE, Defendant, SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, demands judgment against the Plaintiffs and that Plaintiffs take nothing through this cause of action and that Defendant be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the defense of this action. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES The Defendant, SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, asserts the following affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint but does not assume a burden of proof on any of the defenses, except as required by applicable law with respect to the particular defenses asserted. Defendant reserves its right to assert other affirmative defenses, withdraw, or modify its affirmative defenses, or otherwise amend this Answer based upon the discovery of additional facts or evidence. Additionally, these affirmative defenses are pleaded in the alternative, and do not constitute an admission of liability by Defendant. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As its First Affirmative Defense, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's recovery, if any, is barred and/or limited as some or all of the Plaintiff's alleged damage is not covered by the Policy insofar as the Defendant’s investigation revealed no weather-related damage to the roofing system. The observed damages to the roof resulted from manufacturing defects, mechanical damage poor workmanship, improper installation, prior repairs and normal aging and wear and tear, which is not covered under the policy. Interior water staining was found to begin after the policy period and is therefore not covered under the Policy. In support, Defendant points to the following Policy language: PERILS INSURED AGAINST COVERAGEA - DWELLING and COVERAGE B - OTHER STRUCTURES We insure against risk of direct loss to property described in Coverages A and B only if that loss is a physical loss to property. We do not insure, however, for loss: 2. Caused by: h. (1) Wear and tear, marring, deterioration SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As its Second Affirmative Defense, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s recovery, if any, is barred and/or limited as some or all of the Plaintiff's alleged damage is not covered by the Policy insofar as the Defendant’s investigation did not reflect any evidenced of storm or wind related damage. Instead, the investigation reflected that the alleged damage resulted from improper maintenance, which is not covered under the Policy. In support, Defendant points to the following Policy language: GENERAL EXCLUSIONS 2. We do not insure for loss described in Coverage A and B caused by any of the following. However, any ensuring loss to property described in Coverage A and B not excluded or excepted in this policy is covered. c. Faulty, inadequate or defective; (4) Maintenance of part or all of any property whether on or off the Described Location. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As its Third Affirmative Defense, Defendant asserts it is entitled to a set-off of all applicable deductibles related to the claim at issue in this action under policy number P000293979. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of policy number P000293979, Plaintiff has an applicable deductible of $1,000.00 for all perils insured against. Any damage, to the extent it exists, should be reduced by the $1,000.00 applicable deductible, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Policy. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As its Fourth Affirmative Defense, Defendant affirmatively asserts that the pursuant to the terms and conditions of Policy No. P000032375, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's damages as precluded, limited, excluded, or otherwise barred by the limited water damage endorsement language. Subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and Florida law interpreting the same. The limit of liability provided under the policy $10,000.00. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As its Fifth Affirmative Defense, Defendant affirmatively asserts that the claimed damages resulted from each insured's neglect to take ordinary care to prevent damage from occurring. In support, Defendant points to the following Policy language: GENERAL EXCLUSIONS We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. e. Neglect, meaning neglect of the "insured" to use all reasonable means to save and preserve property at and after the time of a loss. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As its Six Affirmative Defense, Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs’ recovery, if any, is barred and/or limited since any potential damage to the insured property’s roof did not exceed the 25% required threshold to apply the provisions specified in Fla. Stat. 708.1.1 “Reroofing,” in the Florida Build Code — Existing Building. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As its Seventh Affirmative Defense, Defendant affirmatively asserts that Plaintiffs failed to give prompt notice of the alleged claim to Defendant as outlined in Section I- Conditions. 2. Your Duties After Loss. The sentence “In case of a loss to covered property, you must see that the following are done:” is deleted and replaced by the following: In case of a loss to covered property, we have no duty to provide coverage under this Policy if the failure to comply with the following duties is prejudicial to us. These duties must be performed either by you, an "insured" seeking coverage, or a representative of either: Under SECTION I- CONDITIONS 2.a. is deleted and replaced by the following: a. Give prompt notice to us or our agent; of the policy controls. Plaintiff's failure to provide prompt notice prejudiced Defendant’s ability to adequately asses the claim. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE As its Eighth Affirmative Defense, Defendant affirmatively asserts that the policy is clear and unambiguous and as such, the plan meaning of the policy controls. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Security First reserves its right to modify any of the foregoing defenses asserted with additional affirmative defenses during this lawsuit, as discovery is ongoing and in its initial stages. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant, SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, demands trial by jury on all issues triable by a jury. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The document contains no confidential or sensitive information or that any such confidential or sensitive language has been properly protected by complying with the provisions of Rule 2.420 and 2.425. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer and Affirmative Defenses has been furnished by Electronic Filing to Attorney for Plaintiffs, using the Florida Courts e-Filing Portal, which will send an automatic e-mail message to the listed parties registered with the e-Filing Portal system on the 8 day of December, 2022. Attorney for Plaintiff David R. Heil, Esq. FBN: 435422 DAVID R. HEIL, P.A. 2324 Lee Road Winter Park, FL 32789 (407) 599-2100 Email: pleadings@heil-law.com david@heil-law.com By/s/ David. G. Marcus. David G. Marcus, Esquire 1001 Broadway Avenue Ormond Beach, Florida 32174 Florida Bar No. 1017428 Primary E-Mail: David.Marcus@securityfirstflorida.com Secondary E-Mail: Cathy.Myers@securityfirstflorida.com Alternate E-Mail: Veronica.Hatch@securityfirstflorida.com Attorney for Defendant SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY