Preview
Filing # 181948742 E-Filed 09/15/2023 05:13:13 PM
113428-5
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a
Florida not for profit corporation, CASE NO. 2020-CA-002942
Plaintiff,
v.
ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company; ADVANCED WRAPPING
AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL
FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation; DON
KING'S CONCRETE, INC., a Florida
corporation; HUGH MACDONALD
CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation;
IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a
Florida corporation; TGK STUCCO, INC., a
Florida corporation; WEATHERMASTER
BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida
corporation; WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS &
FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A WEINTRAUB
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a
Florida corporation; THE DIMILLO GROUP,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company;
WOLF'S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING,
INC., a Florida corporation; SUMMERPARK
HOMES, INC., a Florida corporation; BROWN +
COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida
corporation; EXPERT PAINTING &
PRESSURE WASHING, INC., a Florida
corporation;
Defendants.
_________________________/
ROYAL OAKS HOME, LLC.,
Cross-Claimant,
v.
ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE
SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a
Florida corporation; DON KING'S CONCRETE,
INC., a Florida corporation; HUGH
MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., a
Florida corporation; IMPERIAL BUILDING
CORPORATION, a Florida corporation;
PREMIER PLASTERING OF CENTRAL
FLORIDA, INC N/K/A TGK STUCCO, INC., a
Florida corporation; WEATHERMASTER
BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida
corporation; WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS &
FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A WEINTRAUB
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC.,
WOLF'S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING,
INC., a Florida corporation;
BROWN+COMPANY ARCHITECTURE,
INC., a Florida corporation;
Cross-Defendants
_________________________/
WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS,
INC., a Florida Corporation,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
ALL GLASS INSTALLATION CORP., a
Florida corporation; CASEY HAWKINS,
GLASS, INC., a Florida corporation; DEAN
NESBIT, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company; HELBERG ENTERPRISES, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company; HOBBIT
WINDOWS, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company; T&M CONSTRUCTION OF
SANFORD, INC., a Florida corporation; WELL
DONE WINDOWS, INC., a Florida corporation;
and WELL HUNG WINDOWS & DOORS,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company;
Third-Party Defendants.
____________________________/
-2-
EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING, INC.’S ANSWER AND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DEFENDANT/CROSSCLAIM PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Defendant/Crossclaim Defendant, EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE
WASHING, INC. (hereinafter “EXPERT PAINTING”), by and through its undersigned counsel,
and hereby filed its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Demand for Jury Trial to Second Amended
Crossclaim filed by Defendant/Crossclaim Plaintiff, ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC f/k/a AVH
ACQUISITION, LLC (hereinafter “Royal Oak”), and states as follows:
JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 1 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended
Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded
thereon.
2. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraphs 2 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended
Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded
thereon.
3. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 3 of Royal Oak’s Second
Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING asserts the “claims being made by Plaintiff against
Royal Oak and the Crossclaim Defendants in the Second Amended Complaint, with the exception
of the claims for breach of contractual duty to defend Royal Oak”, speaks for itself. Additionally,
EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 3 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim
as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon.
-3-
4. EXPERT PAINTING admits to the allegations contained within Paragraph 4 of
Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim for jurisdictional purposes only; otherwise, the
allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon.
PARTIES
5-6. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Royal Oak’s Second
Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being
demanded thereon.
7. EXPERT PAINTING admits to the allegations contained within Paragraph 7 of
Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim for jurisdictional purposes only; otherwise, the
allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon.
8-14. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraphs 8 through 14 of Royal Oak’s
Second Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof
being demanded thereon.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
15. EXPERT PAINTING Denies the allegation in Paragraph 15 as it relates to
EXPERT PAINTING, additionally, it appears allegations are also directed to other Second
Amended Crossclaim Defendants in this matter, and as such no response is required by EXPERT
PAINTING. To the extent Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim intended any of the
allegations contained within Paragraph 15 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim to be
directed to EXPERT PAINTING, the allegations are denied as framed, with strict proof demanded
thereupon.
-4-
16. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 16 of Royal Oak’s Second
Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING asserts the “standard form written contract”, speaks
for itself. Additionally, it appears allegations are also directed to other Second Amended
Crossclaim Defendants in this matter, and as such no response is required by EXPERT
PAINTING. To the extent Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim intended any of the
allegations contained within Paragraph 16 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim to be
directed to EXPERT PAINTING, the allegations are denied as framed, with strict proof demanded
thereupon.
17. EXPERT PAINTING Denies the allegation in Paragraph 17 as it relates to
EXPERT PAINTING, additionally, it appears allegations are also directed to other Second
Amended Defendants in this matter, and as such no response is required by EXPERT PAINTING.
To the extent Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim intended any of the allegations contained
within Paragraph 17 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim to be directed to EXPERT
PAINTING, the allegations are denied as framed, with strict proof demanded thereupon.
18. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 18 of Royal Oak’s Second
Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being
demanded thereon.
COUNTS ONE THROUGH SEVEN
19-71. Responding to the allegations contained within Paragraphs 19 through 71 of Royal
Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim, EXPERT PAINTING states that the allegations contained
therein appear to be directed to other Second Amended Crossclaim Defendants in this matter, and
as such, no response is required by EXPERT PAINTING. To the extent the Defendant/Crossclaim
Plaintiff intended any of the allegations contained within Paragraphs 19 through 71 of Royal Oak’s
-5-
Second Amended Crossclaim to be directed to EXPERT PAINTING, the allegations are denied,
as framed, with strict proof demanded thereon.
COUNT EIGHT- BREACH OF CONTRACT
(As to EXPERT PAINTING and PRESSURE WASHING, INC.)
72. Responding to the allegations contained within Paragraph 72 of Royal Oak’s Second
Amended Crossclaim, EXPERT PAINTING re-asserts and incorporates by reference its responses
to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the Second Amended Crossclaim, as is set forth fully herein.
73. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 73 of Royal Oak’s Second
Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING asserts the “Contract” speaks for itself. Additionally,
EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 73 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended
Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded
thereon.
74. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 74 of Royal Oak’s Second
Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING asserts the “Contract” speaks for itself. Additionally,
EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 74 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended
Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded
thereon.
75. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 75 of Royal
Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof
demanded thereon.
-6-
76. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 76 of Royal
Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof
demanded thereon.
77. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 77 of Royal
Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof
demanded thereon.
78. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 78 of Royal Oak’s Second
Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING asserts the “Notice of Complaint” speaks for itself.
Additionally, EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 78 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended
Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded
thereon.
79. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 79 of Royal
Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof
demanded thereon.
80. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 80 of Royal
Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof
demanded thereon.
81. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 81 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended
Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded
thereon.
82. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 82 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended
-7-
Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded
thereon.
COUNT NINE- NEGLIGENCE
(As to EXPERT PAINTING and PRESSURE WASHING, INC.)
83. Responding to the allegations contained within Paragraph 83 of Royal Oak’s Second
Amended Crossclaim, EXPERT PAINTING re-asserts and incorporates by reference its responses
to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the Second Amended Crossclaim, as is set forth fully herein.
84. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 84 of Royal
Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof
demanded thereon.
85. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 85 of Royal
Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof
demanded thereon.
86. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 86 of Royal
Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof
demanded thereon.
COUNT TEN- STATUTORY CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO § 553.84, Fla. Stat.
(As to EXPERT PAINTING and PRESSURE WASHING, INC.)
87. Responding to the allegations contained within Paragraph 87 of Royal Oak’s Second
Amended Crossclaim, EXPERT PAINTING re-asserts and incorporates by reference its responses
to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the Second Amended Crossclaim, as is set forth fully herein.
88. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 88 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended
Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded
thereon.
-8-
89. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 89 of Royal Oak’s Second
Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING asserts the “laws, rules, codes and standards adopted
by Chapter 553” speaks for itself. Additionally, EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph
89 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied
with strict proof being demanded thereon.
90. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 90 of Royal
Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof
demanded thereon.
91. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 91 of Royal
Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof
demanded thereon.
92. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 92 of Royal
Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof
demanded thereon.
93. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 93 of Royal
Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof
demanded thereon.
94. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 94 of Royal Oak’s Second
Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING asserts the “Master Subcontract” speaks for itself.
Additionally, EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 94 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended
Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded
thereon
-9-
COUNTS ELEVEN-THIRTY
95-252. Responding to the allegations contained within Paragraphs 95 through 252 of
Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING states that the allegations
contained therein appear to be directed to other Second Amended Crossclaim Defendants in this
matter, and as such, no response is required by EXPERT PAINTING. To the extent the Second
Amended Crossclaim Plaintiff intended any of the allegations contained within Paragraphs 95
through 252 of their Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim to be directed to EXPERT
PAINTING, the allegations are denied, as framed, with strict proof demanded thereon.
EXPERT PAINTING specifically and generally denies any and all remaining allegations
of the Second Amended Crossclaim, to which no response heretofore has been made and demands
that strict proof be made thereon.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim fails to state claim upon which relief may
be granted, as it fails to set forth with any degree of specificity, sufficient allegations or statements
of ultimate fact necessary to state causes of action against EXPERT PAINTING, or otherwise
advising EXPERT PAINTING of the nature of the causes being pursued against EXPERT
PAINTING; therefore, Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim should be dismissed as a matter
of law.
2. The claims are duplicative, seeking double recovery in certain areas as among the
named parties.
3. The claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and statute of repose.
4. To the extent any damages were caused by faulty, incomplete or deficient plans
created by others, EXPERT PAINTING is not liable for such damages.
- 10 -
5. The damages alleged were the result of the negligence, breaches of contract and/or
breaches of warranty others who were not under the care, custody, control or supervision of
EXPERT PAINTING and for whom EXPERT PAINTING cannot be held liable.
6. The claims are barred by the Plaintiffs failure to mitigate its damages by, among other
things, properly performing maintenance, and/or failing to timely make repairs.
7. Plaintiff and Royal Oaks are barred from recovery against EXPERT PAINTING for
alleged damages that were the result of negligence of other parties, individuals or entities who
proximately caused the alleged damages for which EXPERT PAINTING bears no responsibility
including but not limited to other design professionals, the Plaintiff, Royal Oaks, other parties
named to this lawsuit and other parties not named to this lawsuit which may be identified later
through discovery.
8. Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent that some or all of the items complained of
in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim have
been repaired or were otherwise remedied.
9. Plaintiff’s claims are barred pursuant to § 95.11, Florida Statutes, to the extent that
the claims relate to patent construction deficiencies, or any latent construction deficiencies that
were or should have been discovered within the time period provided pursuant to Florida law.
10. Plaintiff’s and Royal Oaks claims are barred or subject to reduction where the
damages claimed are inflated, excessive and unreasonable based upon the reasonable cost
necessary to perform such construction repairs.
11. Plaintiff’s and Royal Oaks claims are barred or subject to reduction because the
costs to correct the alleged deficient construction amount to unreasonable economic waste.
- 11 -
12. EXPERT PAINTING is entitled to set off for all amounts recovered by Plaintiff
and Royal Oaks, from other sources in compensation of the damages alleged whether by virtue of
judgment, settlement or otherwise.
13. Pursuant to § 768.81, Florida Statutes, EXPERT PAINTING is entitled to a
reduction of any liability to Plaintiff, in direct proportion to the determination of any fault found
on Plaintiff’s part, as well as in direct proportion to the percentage fault allocated to any other
party or tortfeasor. Pursuant to the Fabre doctrine.
14. Plaintiff’s and Royal Oaks claims against EXPERT PAINTING are barred or
subject to reduction because the damages allegedly suffered Plaintiff were proximately caused by
Plaintiff’s own fault, carelessness, inattention to duty, failure to maintain or negligence for which
EXPERT PAINTING is not liable; or from the fault, carelessness, inattention to duty or negligence
of others whose fault or negligence EXPERT PAINTING is not liable.
15. The claims against EXPERT PAINTING are barred in whole or in part because
EXPERT PAINTING is not responsible for design errors of other design professionals pursuant to
the Spearin doctrine.
16. The claims against EXPERT PAINTING are barred in whole or in part because the
alleged defects and deficiencies are the result of normal wear and tear.
17. The claims against EXPERT PAINTING are barred in whole or in part based upon
the Slavin doctrine and its progeny, as well as the doctrines of acceptance, release, estoppel and
waiver.
18. The claims against EXPERT PAINTING are barred or should be reduced because
the actions or inactions of others were contributing or proximate cause of the damage alleged.
19. The claims against EXPERT PAINTING are barred to the extent the repairs sought
constitute betterment of the project.
- 12 -
20. EXPERT PAINTING states that Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to the doctrine of
laches.
21. EXPERT PAINTING states that the damages alleged in this matter, if any, were
proximately caused, in whole or in part, by an act of God for which EXPERT PAINTING has no
responsibility; and therefore, EXPERT PAINTING is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
22. EXPERT PAINTING is not liable because any work that it performed was
validated and approved by appropriate government entities, including Royal Oaks and any third-
party inspection agencies.
23. EXPERT PAINTING states that it was not responsible for the means and methods
of construction as a matter of law. EXPERT PAINTING further incorporates all of the defenses,
exclusions, and limitations in its scope of work by contract as defenses to Plaintiff’s and Royal
Oaks claims.
24. EXPERT PAINTING states Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to the expiration of
the Statute of Limitations.
25. EXPERT PAINTING states Royal Oak’s claims are barred due to the expiration of
the Statute of Repose.
26. EXPERT PAINTING states that it performed its work in compliance with industry
standards applicable to such work for the jurisdiction at that time.
27. EXPERT PAINTING states that Royal Oak’s Claim for Violation of Florida State
Building Code against EXPERT PAINTING (Count 10) is barred as all of the required building
permits were obtained; the local government or public agency with the authority to enforce the
Florida Building Code approved the plans; the construction Project passed all required inspections
under the Florida Building Code; there is no personal injury or damage to property other than the
property which the subject of the permits, plans and inspections; and moreover EXPERT
- 13 -
PAINTING did not know, should not have known and was not otherwise caused to know that a
violation of the Florida Building Code existed. Therefore, EXPERT PAINTING is entitled a
judgment in its favor as a matter of law as to Count 10.
28. EXPERT PAINTING states that it is entitled to assert other defenses, which are
presently unknown, but which may become known upon further discovery in this action. EXPERT
PAINTING reserves the right to amend its Answer and Defenses as additional information
becomes available.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
EXPERT PAINTING demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, EXPERT PAINTING demands judgment in its favor and against
Defendant/Crossclaim Plaintiff denying each and every claim for relief in the
Defendant/Crossclaim Plaintiff’s Second Amended Crossclaim, and for its attorneys’ fees and
costs, together with such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida
ePortal to: Phillip E. Joseph, pjoseph@balljanik.com, dtodd@balljanik.com; Evan Small,
esmall@balljanik.com, bburton@balljanik.com; Jeffrey A. Widelitz, Esquire,
jwidelitz@balljanik.com, cbetancourt@balljanik.com; Christopher S. Tribbey,
ctribbey@balljanik.com, orlandodocket@balljanik.com; Kasey Joyce, kjoyce@balljanik.com;
Lannie D. Hough, Esquire, lhough@carltonfields.com, nbonilla@carltonfields.com; Robin H.
Leavengood, Esquire, rleavengood@carltonfields.com, brosa@carltonfields.com; James M.
Walls, mwalls@carltonfields.com, vwilliams@carltonfields.com; Brian Porter, Esquire,
bporter@carletonfields.com, jcostello@carltonfields.com; Thamir A. R. Kaddouri, Jr., Esquire,
thamir.kaddouri@tampalaw.org; Penelope T. Rowlett, Esquire, service@tampalaw.org; Beth
Ann Tobey, beth.tobey@tampalaw.org; Paul Sidney Elliott, Esquire, pse@psejd.com; Denise M.
Anderson, Esquire, danderson@butler.legal, jjacobs@butler.legal; Ashley Mattingly, Esquire,
amattingly@butler.legal, rjorge@butler.legal; Peter J. Kapsales, Esquire,
pkapsales@milnelawgroup.com; Margaret M. Efta, Esquire, mefta@milnelawgroup.com,
eservice@milnelawgroup.com; Kate F. Gaset, Esquire, kgaset@butler.legal,
dwhite@butler.legal, krieck@butler.legal, rjorge@butler.legal; Timothy C. Ford, Esquire,
tim.ford@hwhlaw.com; Andrew E. Holway, andrew.holaway@hwhlaw.com,
tracy.coale@hwhlaw.com, kathy.wernsing@hwhlaw.com, derrick.calandra@hwhlaw.com; Jayne
Ann Pittman, Esquire, eserviceorl@conroysimberg.com, jpittman@conroysimberg.com,
- 14 -
mmaitland@conroysimberg.com; Natalie C. Fischer, nfischer@conroysimberg.com; Bruce R.
Calderon, Esquire, bcalderon@milbermakris.com, acreech@milbermakris.com; D. Bryan Hill,
Esquire, dhill@milbermakris.com, kmcdowell@milbermakris.com; Eric J. Netcher, Esquire,
enetcher@wrgn-law.com, hpayesh@wrgn-law.com; S. Scott Ross, Esquire,
gstcourtdocs@gspalaw.com, sross@gspalaw.com, cebanks@gspalaw.com,
mcoleman@gspalaw.com; Vicki Lambert, Esquire, luksorl-pleadings@ls-law.com; Alec G.
Masson, Esquire, amason@insurancedefense.net, jpestonit@insurancedefense.net; Andrew T.
Marshall, Esquire, andrew@hamiltonpricelaw.com, nancy@hamiltonpricelaw.com,
kelsey@hamiltonpricelaw.com; Phillip Steven Howell, Esquire,
tampaservice@gallowaylawfirm.com, phowell@gallowaylawfirm.com; Kyle R. McNeal,
Esquire, kmcneal@gallowaylawfirm.com; Cole J. Copertino, Esquire,
ccopertino@wfmblaw.com, cbraungart@wfmblaw.com, lwilliams@wfmblaw.com; Joseph
Laurenc Zollnere, Esquire, floridacdlegalmail@libertymutual.com,
joseph.zollner@libertymutual.com; Chesley G. Moody, Jr., Esquire, cmoody@moodygraf.com;
Mai M. Le, Esquire, mle@moodygraf.com; Nicole Seropian, Esquire, jlspleadings@fednat.com,
nseropian@fednat.com; Jennifer Shippole, Esquire, jshippole@fednat.com; Wayne M. Adler,
Esqurie, wayne.alder@fisherbroyles.com, wmalder@bellsouth.net; Kiernan F. O'Connor,
Esquire, koconnor@oconlaw.com, edroz-stolinas@oconlaw.com, gblackwell@oconlaw.com,
rps@oconlaw.com, tclark@oconlaw.com, klang@oconlaw.com,; on this 15th day of September,
2023.
/s/ Andrew S. Yatkman
Ray Watts, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 816442
Andrew S. Yatkman, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 1023231
WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A.
Attorneys for Expert Painting & Pressure Washing,
Inc.
390 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1000
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 843-3939
Fax: (407) 649-8118
ORLcrtpleadings@wickersmith.com
- 15 -
Preview
Filing # 181948742 E-Filed 09/15/2023 05:13:13 PM 113428-5 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation, CASE NO. 2020-CA-002942 Plaintiff, v. ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation; DON KING'S CONCRETE, INC., a Florida corporation; HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation; IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; TGK STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation; WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida corporation; WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS & FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation; THE DIMILLO GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; WOLF'S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation; SUMMERPARK HOMES, INC., a Florida corporation; BROWN + COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation; EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING, INC., a Florida corporation; Defendants. _________________________/ ROYAL OAKS HOME, LLC., Cross-Claimant, v. ADVANCED WRAPPING AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation; DON KING'S CONCRETE, INC., a Florida corporation; HUGH MACDONALD CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation; IMPERIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; PREMIER PLASTERING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC N/K/A TGK STUCCO, INC., a Florida corporation; WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida corporation; WEINTRAUB INSPECTIONS & FORENSICS, INC. N/K/A WEINTRAUB ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS, INC., WOLF'S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation; BROWN+COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation; Cross-Defendants _________________________/ WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. ALL GLASS INSTALLATION CORP., a Florida corporation; CASEY HAWKINS, GLASS, INC., a Florida corporation; DEAN NESBIT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; HELBERG ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; HOBBIT WINDOWS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; T&M CONSTRUCTION OF SANFORD, INC., a Florida corporation; WELL DONE WINDOWS, INC., a Florida corporation; and WELL HUNG WINDOWS & DOORS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; Third-Party Defendants. ____________________________/ -2- EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING, INC.’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DEFENDANT/CROSSCLAIM PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW, Defendant/Crossclaim Defendant, EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING, INC. (hereinafter “EXPERT PAINTING”), by and through its undersigned counsel, and hereby filed its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Demand for Jury Trial to Second Amended Crossclaim filed by Defendant/Crossclaim Plaintiff, ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC f/k/a AVH ACQUISITION, LLC (hereinafter “Royal Oak”), and states as follows: JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 1 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon. 2. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraphs 2 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon. 3. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 3 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING asserts the “claims being made by Plaintiff against Royal Oak and the Crossclaim Defendants in the Second Amended Complaint, with the exception of the claims for breach of contractual duty to defend Royal Oak”, speaks for itself. Additionally, EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 3 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon. -3- 4. EXPERT PAINTING admits to the allegations contained within Paragraph 4 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim for jurisdictional purposes only; otherwise, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon. PARTIES 5-6. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon. 7. EXPERT PAINTING admits to the allegations contained within Paragraph 7 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim for jurisdictional purposes only; otherwise, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon. 8-14. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraphs 8 through 14 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 15. EXPERT PAINTING Denies the allegation in Paragraph 15 as it relates to EXPERT PAINTING, additionally, it appears allegations are also directed to other Second Amended Crossclaim Defendants in this matter, and as such no response is required by EXPERT PAINTING. To the extent Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim intended any of the allegations contained within Paragraph 15 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim to be directed to EXPERT PAINTING, the allegations are denied as framed, with strict proof demanded thereupon. -4- 16. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 16 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING asserts the “standard form written contract”, speaks for itself. Additionally, it appears allegations are also directed to other Second Amended Crossclaim Defendants in this matter, and as such no response is required by EXPERT PAINTING. To the extent Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim intended any of the allegations contained within Paragraph 16 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim to be directed to EXPERT PAINTING, the allegations are denied as framed, with strict proof demanded thereupon. 17. EXPERT PAINTING Denies the allegation in Paragraph 17 as it relates to EXPERT PAINTING, additionally, it appears allegations are also directed to other Second Amended Defendants in this matter, and as such no response is required by EXPERT PAINTING. To the extent Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim intended any of the allegations contained within Paragraph 17 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim to be directed to EXPERT PAINTING, the allegations are denied as framed, with strict proof demanded thereupon. 18. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 18 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon. COUNTS ONE THROUGH SEVEN 19-71. Responding to the allegations contained within Paragraphs 19 through 71 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim, EXPERT PAINTING states that the allegations contained therein appear to be directed to other Second Amended Crossclaim Defendants in this matter, and as such, no response is required by EXPERT PAINTING. To the extent the Defendant/Crossclaim Plaintiff intended any of the allegations contained within Paragraphs 19 through 71 of Royal Oak’s -5- Second Amended Crossclaim to be directed to EXPERT PAINTING, the allegations are denied, as framed, with strict proof demanded thereon. COUNT EIGHT- BREACH OF CONTRACT (As to EXPERT PAINTING and PRESSURE WASHING, INC.) 72. Responding to the allegations contained within Paragraph 72 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim, EXPERT PAINTING re-asserts and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the Second Amended Crossclaim, as is set forth fully herein. 73. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 73 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING asserts the “Contract” speaks for itself. Additionally, EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 73 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon. 74. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 74 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING asserts the “Contract” speaks for itself. Additionally, EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 74 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon. 75. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 75 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof demanded thereon. -6- 76. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 76 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof demanded thereon. 77. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 77 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof demanded thereon. 78. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 78 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING asserts the “Notice of Complaint” speaks for itself. Additionally, EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 78 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon. 79. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 79 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof demanded thereon. 80. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 80 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof demanded thereon. 81. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 81 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon. 82. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 82 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended -7- Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon. COUNT NINE- NEGLIGENCE (As to EXPERT PAINTING and PRESSURE WASHING, INC.) 83. Responding to the allegations contained within Paragraph 83 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim, EXPERT PAINTING re-asserts and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the Second Amended Crossclaim, as is set forth fully herein. 84. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 84 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof demanded thereon. 85. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 85 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof demanded thereon. 86. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 86 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof demanded thereon. COUNT TEN- STATUTORY CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO § 553.84, Fla. Stat. (As to EXPERT PAINTING and PRESSURE WASHING, INC.) 87. Responding to the allegations contained within Paragraph 87 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim, EXPERT PAINTING re-asserts and incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the Second Amended Crossclaim, as is set forth fully herein. 88. EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 88 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon. -8- 89. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 89 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING asserts the “laws, rules, codes and standards adopted by Chapter 553” speaks for itself. Additionally, EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 89 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon. 90. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 90 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof demanded thereon. 91. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 91 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof demanded thereon. 92. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 92 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof demanded thereon. 93. EXPERT PAINTING denies the allegations contained within Paragraph 93 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as they pertain to EXPERT PAINTING, with strict proof demanded thereon. 94. Responding to the allegations contained within paragraph 94 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING asserts the “Master Subcontract” speaks for itself. Additionally, EXPERT PAINTING is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 94 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim as drafted, and as such, the allegations are denied with strict proof being demanded thereon -9- COUNTS ELEVEN-THIRTY 95-252. Responding to the allegations contained within Paragraphs 95 through 252 of Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim EXPERT PAINTING states that the allegations contained therein appear to be directed to other Second Amended Crossclaim Defendants in this matter, and as such, no response is required by EXPERT PAINTING. To the extent the Second Amended Crossclaim Plaintiff intended any of the allegations contained within Paragraphs 95 through 252 of their Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim to be directed to EXPERT PAINTING, the allegations are denied, as framed, with strict proof demanded thereon. EXPERT PAINTING specifically and generally denies any and all remaining allegations of the Second Amended Crossclaim, to which no response heretofore has been made and demands that strict proof be made thereon. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim fails to state claim upon which relief may be granted, as it fails to set forth with any degree of specificity, sufficient allegations or statements of ultimate fact necessary to state causes of action against EXPERT PAINTING, or otherwise advising EXPERT PAINTING of the nature of the causes being pursued against EXPERT PAINTING; therefore, Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim should be dismissed as a matter of law. 2. The claims are duplicative, seeking double recovery in certain areas as among the named parties. 3. The claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and statute of repose. 4. To the extent any damages were caused by faulty, incomplete or deficient plans created by others, EXPERT PAINTING is not liable for such damages. - 10 - 5. The damages alleged were the result of the negligence, breaches of contract and/or breaches of warranty others who were not under the care, custody, control or supervision of EXPERT PAINTING and for whom EXPERT PAINTING cannot be held liable. 6. The claims are barred by the Plaintiffs failure to mitigate its damages by, among other things, properly performing maintenance, and/or failing to timely make repairs. 7. Plaintiff and Royal Oaks are barred from recovery against EXPERT PAINTING for alleged damages that were the result of negligence of other parties, individuals or entities who proximately caused the alleged damages for which EXPERT PAINTING bears no responsibility including but not limited to other design professionals, the Plaintiff, Royal Oaks, other parties named to this lawsuit and other parties not named to this lawsuit which may be identified later through discovery. 8. Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent that some or all of the items complained of in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and Royal Oak’s Second Amended Crossclaim have been repaired or were otherwise remedied. 9. Plaintiff’s claims are barred pursuant to § 95.11, Florida Statutes, to the extent that the claims relate to patent construction deficiencies, or any latent construction deficiencies that were or should have been discovered within the time period provided pursuant to Florida law. 10. Plaintiff’s and Royal Oaks claims are barred or subject to reduction where the damages claimed are inflated, excessive and unreasonable based upon the reasonable cost necessary to perform such construction repairs. 11. Plaintiff’s and Royal Oaks claims are barred or subject to reduction because the costs to correct the alleged deficient construction amount to unreasonable economic waste. - 11 - 12. EXPERT PAINTING is entitled to set off for all amounts recovered by Plaintiff and Royal Oaks, from other sources in compensation of the damages alleged whether by virtue of judgment, settlement or otherwise. 13. Pursuant to § 768.81, Florida Statutes, EXPERT PAINTING is entitled to a reduction of any liability to Plaintiff, in direct proportion to the determination of any fault found on Plaintiff’s part, as well as in direct proportion to the percentage fault allocated to any other party or tortfeasor. Pursuant to the Fabre doctrine. 14. Plaintiff’s and Royal Oaks claims against EXPERT PAINTING are barred or subject to reduction because the damages allegedly suffered Plaintiff were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s own fault, carelessness, inattention to duty, failure to maintain or negligence for which EXPERT PAINTING is not liable; or from the fault, carelessness, inattention to duty or negligence of others whose fault or negligence EXPERT PAINTING is not liable. 15. The claims against EXPERT PAINTING are barred in whole or in part because EXPERT PAINTING is not responsible for design errors of other design professionals pursuant to the Spearin doctrine. 16. The claims against EXPERT PAINTING are barred in whole or in part because the alleged defects and deficiencies are the result of normal wear and tear. 17. The claims against EXPERT PAINTING are barred in whole or in part based upon the Slavin doctrine and its progeny, as well as the doctrines of acceptance, release, estoppel and waiver. 18. The claims against EXPERT PAINTING are barred or should be reduced because the actions or inactions of others were contributing or proximate cause of the damage alleged. 19. The claims against EXPERT PAINTING are barred to the extent the repairs sought constitute betterment of the project. - 12 - 20. EXPERT PAINTING states that Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to the doctrine of laches. 21. EXPERT PAINTING states that the damages alleged in this matter, if any, were proximately caused, in whole or in part, by an act of God for which EXPERT PAINTING has no responsibility; and therefore, EXPERT PAINTING is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 22. EXPERT PAINTING is not liable because any work that it performed was validated and approved by appropriate government entities, including Royal Oaks and any third- party inspection agencies. 23. EXPERT PAINTING states that it was not responsible for the means and methods of construction as a matter of law. EXPERT PAINTING further incorporates all of the defenses, exclusions, and limitations in its scope of work by contract as defenses to Plaintiff’s and Royal Oaks claims. 24. EXPERT PAINTING states Plaintiff’s claims are barred due to the expiration of the Statute of Limitations. 25. EXPERT PAINTING states Royal Oak’s claims are barred due to the expiration of the Statute of Repose. 26. EXPERT PAINTING states that it performed its work in compliance with industry standards applicable to such work for the jurisdiction at that time. 27. EXPERT PAINTING states that Royal Oak’s Claim for Violation of Florida State Building Code against EXPERT PAINTING (Count 10) is barred as all of the required building permits were obtained; the local government or public agency with the authority to enforce the Florida Building Code approved the plans; the construction Project passed all required inspections under the Florida Building Code; there is no personal injury or damage to property other than the property which the subject of the permits, plans and inspections; and moreover EXPERT - 13 - PAINTING did not know, should not have known and was not otherwise caused to know that a violation of the Florida Building Code existed. Therefore, EXPERT PAINTING is entitled a judgment in its favor as a matter of law as to Count 10. 28. EXPERT PAINTING states that it is entitled to assert other defenses, which are presently unknown, but which may become known upon further discovery in this action. EXPERT PAINTING reserves the right to amend its Answer and Defenses as additional information becomes available. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL EXPERT PAINTING demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, EXPERT PAINTING demands judgment in its favor and against Defendant/Crossclaim Plaintiff denying each and every claim for relief in the Defendant/Crossclaim Plaintiff’s Second Amended Crossclaim, and for its attorneys’ fees and costs, together with such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida ePortal to: Phillip E. Joseph, pjoseph@balljanik.com, dtodd@balljanik.com; Evan Small, esmall@balljanik.com, bburton@balljanik.com; Jeffrey A. Widelitz, Esquire, jwidelitz@balljanik.com, cbetancourt@balljanik.com; Christopher S. Tribbey, ctribbey@balljanik.com, orlandodocket@balljanik.com; Kasey Joyce, kjoyce@balljanik.com; Lannie D. Hough, Esquire, lhough@carltonfields.com, nbonilla@carltonfields.com; Robin H. Leavengood, Esquire, rleavengood@carltonfields.com, brosa@carltonfields.com; James M. Walls, mwalls@carltonfields.com, vwilliams@carltonfields.com; Brian Porter, Esquire, bporter@carletonfields.com, jcostello@carltonfields.com; Thamir A. R. Kaddouri, Jr., Esquire, thamir.kaddouri@tampalaw.org; Penelope T. Rowlett, Esquire, service@tampalaw.org; Beth Ann Tobey, beth.tobey@tampalaw.org; Paul Sidney Elliott, Esquire, pse@psejd.com; Denise M. Anderson, Esquire, danderson@butler.legal, jjacobs@butler.legal; Ashley Mattingly, Esquire, amattingly@butler.legal, rjorge@butler.legal; Peter J. Kapsales, Esquire, pkapsales@milnelawgroup.com; Margaret M. Efta, Esquire, mefta@milnelawgroup.com, eservice@milnelawgroup.com; Kate F. Gaset, Esquire, kgaset@butler.legal, dwhite@butler.legal, krieck@butler.legal, rjorge@butler.legal; Timothy C. Ford, Esquire, tim.ford@hwhlaw.com; Andrew E. Holway, andrew.holaway@hwhlaw.com, tracy.coale@hwhlaw.com, kathy.wernsing@hwhlaw.com, derrick.calandra@hwhlaw.com; Jayne Ann Pittman, Esquire, eserviceorl@conroysimberg.com, jpittman@conroysimberg.com, - 14 - mmaitland@conroysimberg.com; Natalie C. Fischer, nfischer@conroysimberg.com; Bruce R. Calderon, Esquire, bcalderon@milbermakris.com, acreech@milbermakris.com; D. Bryan Hill, Esquire, dhill@milbermakris.com, kmcdowell@milbermakris.com; Eric J. Netcher, Esquire, enetcher@wrgn-law.com, hpayesh@wrgn-law.com; S. Scott Ross, Esquire, gstcourtdocs@gspalaw.com, sross@gspalaw.com, cebanks@gspalaw.com, mcoleman@gspalaw.com; Vicki Lambert, Esquire, luksorl-pleadings@ls-law.com; Alec G. Masson, Esquire, amason@insurancedefense.net, jpestonit@insurancedefense.net; Andrew T. Marshall, Esquire, andrew@hamiltonpricelaw.com, nancy@hamiltonpricelaw.com, kelsey@hamiltonpricelaw.com; Phillip Steven Howell, Esquire, tampaservice@gallowaylawfirm.com, phowell@gallowaylawfirm.com; Kyle R. McNeal, Esquire, kmcneal@gallowaylawfirm.com; Cole J. Copertino, Esquire, ccopertino@wfmblaw.com, cbraungart@wfmblaw.com, lwilliams@wfmblaw.com; Joseph Laurenc Zollnere, Esquire, floridacdlegalmail@libertymutual.com, joseph.zollner@libertymutual.com; Chesley G. Moody, Jr., Esquire, cmoody@moodygraf.com; Mai M. Le, Esquire, mle@moodygraf.com; Nicole Seropian, Esquire, jlspleadings@fednat.com, nseropian@fednat.com; Jennifer Shippole, Esquire, jshippole@fednat.com; Wayne M. Adler, Esqurie, wayne.alder@fisherbroyles.com, wmalder@bellsouth.net; Kiernan F. O'Connor, Esquire, koconnor@oconlaw.com, edroz-stolinas@oconlaw.com, gblackwell@oconlaw.com, rps@oconlaw.com, tclark@oconlaw.com, klang@oconlaw.com,; on this 15th day of September, 2023. /s/ Andrew S. Yatkman Ray Watts, Esquire Florida Bar No. 816442 Andrew S. Yatkman, Esquire Florida Bar No. 1023231 WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A. Attorneys for Expert Painting & Pressure Washing, Inc. 390 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1000 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 843-3939 Fax: (407) 649-8118 ORLcrtpleadings@wickersmith.com - 15 -