Preview
Filing # 140957602 E-Filed 12/27/2021 01:39:41 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 13TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 21-CA-005495
JEREME SCHUMACHER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
_______________________________________/
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASES
COMES NOW, the Defendant, by and through its undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 1.270 of
the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves this Court for entry of an Order for
consolidation of related cases and states:
1. This action arises out of a claim under a homeowner’s policy of insurance issued by
Heritage to Jereme Schumacher (“Insured”) bearing policy number HOH155341 providing
certain coverage for the property located at 19040 Fishermans Bend Dr., Lutz, FL 33558
(“The Property”).
2. On or about May 4, 2019, Jasper Contractors Inc. A/A/O Jereme Schumacher (“AOB”)
filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough county, Case No. 19-CA-
004718, Division D, alleging breach of contract against Defendant. The claim underlying
the lawsuit related to alleged windstorm damage on the subject insured property occurring
on or about June 8, 2018. See Summons and Complaint filed by the Jasper Contractors Inc.
A/A/O Jereme Schumacher attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
3. On or about June 30, 2021, Insured filed this action in the Circuit Court in and for
Hillsborough county, Case No. 21-CA-005495, Division C, alleging breach of contract
against Defendant. The claim underlying the Insured’s lawsuit related to alleged wind
12/27/2021 1:39 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 1
damage on the subject property occurring on or about April 11, 2021. See Summons and
Complaint filed by Jereme Schumacher attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
4. The lawsuit filed by the AOB, Jasper Contractors Inc. A/A/O Jereme Schumacher, Case
No. 19-CA-004718, is currently pending before Honorable Judge Emily Peacock.
5. Both lawsuit and claims involve the same cause of damage, the same property, and the
same policy.
6. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.270(a) state as follows:
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are
pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any
or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions
consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings
therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
Under this rule, the actions must be pending in the same jurisdiction in order to consolidate.
See e.g. Wetherington v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 661 So 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA
1995).
7. In deciding whether to consolidate cases, a trial court must consider the following factors:
(1) whether the trial process will be accelerated due to the
consolidation; (2) whether unnecessary costs and delays can be
avoided by consolidation; (3) whether there is the possibility for
inconsistent verdicts; (4) whether consolidation would eliminate
duplicative trials that involve substantially the same core of
operative facts and questions of law; and (5) whether consolidation
would deprive a party of a substantive right.
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Bonham, 886 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.270(a).
8. Although consolidation ordinarily falls within the trial court’s discretion, when there is a
possibility of “repugnant and inconsistent verdicts,” denial of a request to consolidate is “a
departure from the essential requirement of the law, because it could material injury that
cannot be remedied on appeal.” Tracey v. Swanholm Cent., Ltd. Liab. Co., 223 So. 3d
448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Tommie v. La Chance, 412 So. 2d 439,441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
12/27/2021 1:39 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 2
9. Here, there is a direct, substantial threat of inconsistent results and duplication of judicial
resources, because both the actions arise out of wind damage, with common questions of
both law and fact.
10. Consolidation will aide in the avoidance duplication of discovery efforts by the parties,
thus reducing costs and time associated with litigating two separate actions. As such,
consolidation would serve the interests of judicial economy.
11. Furthermore, consolidation of the cases will not deprive the parties of any substantive right.
CDI Contractors, LLC. v. Allbrite Elec. Contractors, Inc., 836 So.2d 1031, 1033 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2002) (stating that "consolidation affects only the procedure of the cases, but has no
effect on the substantive rights of the parties in an individual case, and does not destroy
their separate identities").
12. This motion is being filed in a good faith effort to promote judicial efficiency, minimize
the duplication of discovery, and avoid inconsistent results. See e.g. State v. R.H. Rowe,
104 So. 2d 134, 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958) (holding in circuit having two or more judges,
orderly and efficient administration of justice might sometimes suggest that, when any one
of such judges assumes to act with respect to a particular controversy in a suit, other suits
involving same controversy might well be consolidated with first suit or the various suits
heard or tried together); SPS Development Co., LLC. v. DS Enterprise of the Palm Beaches,
Inc., 970 So. 495,497 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing OneBeacon Ins. Co v. Delta Fire
Sprinklers, Inc., 898 So. 2d 113, 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)) (holding where cases are
consolidated for discovery and trial, they do not lose their individual identities as distinct,
separately filed actions).
13. Based on the foregoing, consolidation is appropriate. Defendant respectfully requests that
the Court consolidate this matter with the AOB's case stemming from the same nucleus of
facts.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant Defendant's
Motion to Consolidate, and any further relief this Court deems just and proper.
[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
12/27/2021 1:39 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via electronic
mail via the Florida e-filing portal to: Robert Gonzalez, Esq., Florida Insurance Law Group, LLC,
8724 Sunset Drive, #260, Miami, Florida 33173; pleadings@flinslaw.com; on this 27th day of
December 2021, pursuant to Rule 2.516.
.
Attorney for Heritage Property and Casualty
Insurance Company
2600 McCormick Dr.
Suite 300
Clearwater, Florida 33759
Telephone: (727) 362-7200
pferreira@heritagepci.com
ygil@heritagepci.com
sstander@heritagepci.com
By: \s\ Priscila Ferreira
Priscila Ferreira, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 1015840
12/27/2021 1:39 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 4
Preview
Filing # 140957602 E-Filed 12/27/2021 01:39:41 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 13TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 21-CA-005495 JEREME SCHUMACHER, Plaintiff, vs. HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. _______________________________________/ DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASES COMES NOW, the Defendant, by and through its undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 1.270 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves this Court for entry of an Order for consolidation of related cases and states: 1. This action arises out of a claim under a homeowner’s policy of insurance issued by Heritage to Jereme Schumacher (“Insured”) bearing policy number HOH155341 providing certain coverage for the property located at 19040 Fishermans Bend Dr., Lutz, FL 33558 (“The Property”). 2. On or about May 4, 2019, Jasper Contractors Inc. A/A/O Jereme Schumacher (“AOB”) filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough county, Case No. 19-CA- 004718, Division D, alleging breach of contract against Defendant. The claim underlying the lawsuit related to alleged windstorm damage on the subject insured property occurring on or about June 8, 2018. See Summons and Complaint filed by the Jasper Contractors Inc. A/A/O Jereme Schumacher attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 3. On or about June 30, 2021, Insured filed this action in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough county, Case No. 21-CA-005495, Division C, alleging breach of contract against Defendant. The claim underlying the Insured’s lawsuit related to alleged wind 12/27/2021 1:39 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 1 damage on the subject property occurring on or about April 11, 2021. See Summons and Complaint filed by Jereme Schumacher attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” 4. The lawsuit filed by the AOB, Jasper Contractors Inc. A/A/O Jereme Schumacher, Case No. 19-CA-004718, is currently pending before Honorable Judge Emily Peacock. 5. Both lawsuit and claims involve the same cause of damage, the same property, and the same policy. 6. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.270(a) state as follows: When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. Under this rule, the actions must be pending in the same jurisdiction in order to consolidate. See e.g. Wetherington v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 661 So 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). 7. In deciding whether to consolidate cases, a trial court must consider the following factors: (1) whether the trial process will be accelerated due to the consolidation; (2) whether unnecessary costs and delays can be avoided by consolidation; (3) whether there is the possibility for inconsistent verdicts; (4) whether consolidation would eliminate duplicative trials that involve substantially the same core of operative facts and questions of law; and (5) whether consolidation would deprive a party of a substantive right. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Bonham, 886 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.270(a). 8. Although consolidation ordinarily falls within the trial court’s discretion, when there is a possibility of “repugnant and inconsistent verdicts,” denial of a request to consolidate is “a departure from the essential requirement of the law, because it could material injury that cannot be remedied on appeal.” Tracey v. Swanholm Cent., Ltd. Liab. Co., 223 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Tommie v. La Chance, 412 So. 2d 439,441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). 12/27/2021 1:39 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 2 9. Here, there is a direct, substantial threat of inconsistent results and duplication of judicial resources, because both the actions arise out of wind damage, with common questions of both law and fact. 10. Consolidation will aide in the avoidance duplication of discovery efforts by the parties, thus reducing costs and time associated with litigating two separate actions. As such, consolidation would serve the interests of judicial economy. 11. Furthermore, consolidation of the cases will not deprive the parties of any substantive right. CDI Contractors, LLC. v. Allbrite Elec. Contractors, Inc., 836 So.2d 1031, 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (stating that "consolidation affects only the procedure of the cases, but has no effect on the substantive rights of the parties in an individual case, and does not destroy their separate identities"). 12. This motion is being filed in a good faith effort to promote judicial efficiency, minimize the duplication of discovery, and avoid inconsistent results. See e.g. State v. R.H. Rowe, 104 So. 2d 134, 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958) (holding in circuit having two or more judges, orderly and efficient administration of justice might sometimes suggest that, when any one of such judges assumes to act with respect to a particular controversy in a suit, other suits involving same controversy might well be consolidated with first suit or the various suits heard or tried together); SPS Development Co., LLC. v. DS Enterprise of the Palm Beaches, Inc., 970 So. 495,497 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing OneBeacon Ins. Co v. Delta Fire Sprinklers, Inc., 898 So. 2d 113, 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)) (holding where cases are consolidated for discovery and trial, they do not lose their individual identities as distinct, separately filed actions). 13. Based on the foregoing, consolidation is appropriate. Defendant respectfully requests that the Court consolidate this matter with the AOB's case stemming from the same nucleus of facts. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant Defendant's Motion to Consolidate, and any further relief this Court deems just and proper. [CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] 12/27/2021 1:39 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via electronic mail via the Florida e-filing portal to: Robert Gonzalez, Esq., Florida Insurance Law Group, LLC, 8724 Sunset Drive, #260, Miami, Florida 33173; pleadings@flinslaw.com; on this 27th day of December 2021, pursuant to Rule 2.516. . Attorney for Heritage Property and Casualty Insurance Company 2600 McCormick Dr. Suite 300 Clearwater, Florida 33759 Telephone: (727) 362-7200 pferreira@heritagepci.com ygil@heritagepci.com sstander@heritagepci.com By: \s\ Priscila Ferreira Priscila Ferreira, Esq. Florida Bar No. 1015840 12/27/2021 1:39 PM Electronically Filed: Hillsborough County/13th Judicial Circuit Page 4