On July 07, 2022 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Geico General Insurance Company,
Geico Indemnity Company,
and
Dora L Lopez Cruiz,
for AUTO NEGLIGENCE CASE Division: CV-B
in the District Court of Duval County.
Preview
Filing # 167421069 E-Filed 02/23/2023 02:32:33 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 4th
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL
COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 16-2022-CA-003897-XXXX-MA
Geico General Insurance Company
aso Alejandro Rosario Jr. and Radha Chennu
and Geico Indemnity Company aso Thomas Frey,
Plaintiff,
v.
Dora Luz Lopez Cruiz,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant, Dora Luz Lopez Cruiz, through her undersigned counsel, files this her
Answer and Affirmative Defenses, pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, files this her
Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and would state as follows:
1. The allegations contained in paragraph #1 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint are admitted
for jurisdictional purposes only.
2. Defendant is without knowledge; therefore, denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded.
3. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
4. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
5. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
6. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
7. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
8. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
9. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
10. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 02/23/2023 08:36:54 PM
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
As its First Affirmative Defense, Defendant affirmatively alleges that if the Plaintiff’s
subrogor has suffered losses as alleged, those losses are the proximate result of negligence
committed by the Plaintiffs’ subrogor and/or representatives of the Plaintiffs, by reason of
which the Plaintiffs’ recovery, if any, should be proportionally diminished under Florida’s
comparative negligence doctrine.
As its Second Affirmative Defense, Defendant further affirmatively alleges that the Plaintiff’s
subrogor has failed to mitigate her damages.
As its Third Affirmative Defense, Defendant further affirmatively alleges that although
Defendant denies liability to the Plaintiff, if any liability is found on the part of the Defendant, then
the Defendant would only be responsible for her portion of damages based on her percentage
of liability pursuant to section 768.81, Florida Statutes.
As its Fourth Affirmative Defense, Defendant further affirmatively alleges that any recovery
should be reduced or barred by any settlement, judgment, or payment of any kind by any
individual or entity in connection with the subject matter of the incidents described in the
Complaint.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by
electronic mail pleadings@yatesandschiller.com; Julie E. Yates, Esq., and Bruce H. Schiller,
Esq., Law Offices of Yates & Schiller, P.A., 7900 Glades Road, Suite 405, Boca Raton, FL
33434 on this 23rd day of February, 2023.
McFARLANE LAW
McFarlane Dolan & Prince
Attorneys for Defendant
210 N. University Drive, 6th Floor
Coral Springs, Florida 33071
(954) 340-0005 Broward
(954) 340-0055 Facsimile
PLEADING SERVICE E-MAIL ADDRESS:
pleadingservice@mcfarlanedolanlaw.com
By: /s/ William J. McFarlane, III, Esquire
William McFarlane, Esquire
Florida Bar No: 768601
Document Filed Date
February 23, 2023
Case Filing Date
July 07, 2022
Category
AUTO NEGLIGENCE CASE Division: CV-B
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Filing # 167421069 E-Filed 02/23/2023 02:32:33 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 4th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 16-2022-CA-003897-XXXX-MA Geico General Insurance Company aso Alejandro Rosario Jr. and Radha Chennu and Geico Indemnity Company aso Thomas Frey, Plaintiff, v. Dora Luz Lopez Cruiz, Defendant. __________________________________/ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant, Dora Luz Lopez Cruiz, through her undersigned counsel, files this her Answer and Affirmative Defenses, pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, files this her Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and would state as follows: 1. The allegations contained in paragraph #1 of the Plaintiff’s Complaint are admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. 2. Defendant is without knowledge; therefore, denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 3. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 4. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 5. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 6. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 7. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 8. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 9. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 10. Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 02/23/2023 08:36:54 PM AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES As its First Affirmative Defense, Defendant affirmatively alleges that if the Plaintiff’s subrogor has suffered losses as alleged, those losses are the proximate result of negligence committed by the Plaintiffs’ subrogor and/or representatives of the Plaintiffs, by reason of which the Plaintiffs’ recovery, if any, should be proportionally diminished under Florida’s comparative negligence doctrine. As its Second Affirmative Defense, Defendant further affirmatively alleges that the Plaintiff’s subrogor has failed to mitigate her damages. As its Third Affirmative Defense, Defendant further affirmatively alleges that although Defendant denies liability to the Plaintiff, if any liability is found on the part of the Defendant, then the Defendant would only be responsible for her portion of damages based on her percentage of liability pursuant to section 768.81, Florida Statutes. As its Fourth Affirmative Defense, Defendant further affirmatively alleges that any recovery should be reduced or barred by any settlement, judgment, or payment of any kind by any individual or entity in connection with the subject matter of the incidents described in the Complaint. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by electronic mail pleadings@yatesandschiller.com; Julie E. Yates, Esq., and Bruce H. Schiller, Esq., Law Offices of Yates & Schiller, P.A., 7900 Glades Road, Suite 405, Boca Raton, FL 33434 on this 23rd day of February, 2023. McFARLANE LAW McFarlane Dolan & Prince Attorneys for Defendant 210 N. University Drive, 6th Floor Coral Springs, Florida 33071 (954) 340-0005 Broward (954) 340-0055 Facsimile PLEADING SERVICE E-MAIL ADDRESS: pleadingservice@mcfarlanedolanlaw.com By: /s/ William J. McFarlane, III, Esquire William McFarlane, Esquire Florida Bar No: 768601