Preview
Filing # 145947226 E-Filed 03/17/2022 05:25:57 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit
corporation,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO.: 2020-CA-002942-ON
ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, f/k/a AVH ACQUISITION LLC;
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., 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 OAK HOMES, LLC, f/k/a AVH
ACQUISITION,
Cross Claim Plaintiff,
v.
128674932.1
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;
WOLF’S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC.,
a Florida corporation; BROWN + COMPANY
ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation;
EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING,
INC., a Florida corporation,
Cross Claim Defendants.
/
WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS,
INC., a Florida Corporation; DON KING’S
CONCRETE INC., a Florida Corporation,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
ALL GLASS INSTALLATION COPRP., a Florida
corporation; CASEY HAWKINS GLASS, INC., a
Florida corporation; DEAN NESBIT, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; HELBERG
ENGERPRISES, 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; E.R.O.
CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida Corporation;
LIOS CONCRETE CORP., a Florida Corporation;
and ATLANTIC CONCRETE SYSTEMS, INC., a
Florida Corporation,
Third-Party Defendants.
2
128674932.1
/
DEFENDANT/CROSSCLAIM PLAINTIFF, ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC’S, NOTICE
OF SERVING UNVERIFIED ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT/CROSSCLAIM
DEFENDANT, BROWN + COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC.’S,
SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Defendant/Crossclaim Plaintiff, Royal Oak Homes, LLC (“Royal Oak”), pursuant to Rule
1.340, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby serves its Unverified Answers to
Defendant/Crossclaim Defendant, Brown + Company Architecture, Inc.’s (“Brown”), Second1 Set
of Interrogatories Numbers 1 through 12.
/s/ James Michael Walls
Lannie D. Hough Jr.
Florida Bar No. 149470
Robin H. Leavengood
Florida Bar No. 0547751
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33607-5780
Telephone: (813) 223-7000
Facsimile: (813) 229-4133
lhough@carltonfields.com
nbonilla@carltonfields.com
rleavengood@carltonfields.com
ejohnson@carltonfields.com
mwalls@carltonfields.com
bporter@carltonfields.com
Attorneys for Defendant, Royal Oak
Homes, LLC
1
Although Brown styles these interrogatories as its “First” set of interrogatories to Royal Oak, Brown previously
served Royal Oak with its Amended First Set of Interrogatories in this action on October 18, 2021.
3
128674932.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 17, 2022, the foregoing was electronically filed with
the Clerk of the Court by using the E-filing Portal, which will electronically serve this document
to all registered counsel of record.
/s/ James Michael Walls
SERVICE LIST
Phillip E. Joseph, Esquire Paul Sidney Elliott
Evan J. Small, Esquire P.O. Box 274204
Jeffrey A. Widelitz, Esq. Tampa, FL 33688-4204
Allana D.E. Smith, Esquire P. 813-265-1314
BALL JANIK LLP F. 813-961-1103
201 E. Pine Street, Suite 600 pse@psejd.com
Orlando, FL 32801 Counsel for Defendant, Hugh MacDonald
Telephone: (407) 455-5664 Construction, Inc. (HMC)
pjoseph@balljanik.com
esmall@balljanik.com
jwidelitz@balljanik.cim Denise Anderson, Esquire
asmith@balljanik.com Ashley Mattingly, Esquire
ypalmer@balljanik.com BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG
cbetancourt@balljanik.com LLP
bburton@balljanik.com 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 2300
dmikesell@balljanik.com Tampa, Florida 33602
orlandodocket@balljanik.com Telephone: (813) 281-1900
Counsel for Plaintiff, Villas at Emerald Lake danderson@butler.legal
Homeowners Association, Inc. amattingly@butler.legal
jjacobs@butler.legal
rjorge@butler.legal
Co-Counsel for Defendant, Hugh
MacDonald Construction, Inc.
4
128674932.1
Peter J. Kapsales, Esquire Denise Anderson, Esquire
Margaret M. Efta, Equire David A. Mercer, Esq.
MILNE LAW GROUP, P.A. BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG
301 E. Pine Straeet, Suite 525 LLP
Orlando, Florida 32801 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 2300
Telephone: (321) 558-7700 Tampa, Florida 33602
pkapsales@milnelawgroup.com Telephone: (813) 281-1900
mefta@milnelawgroup.com danderson@butler.legal
mmilne@milnelawgroup.com dmercer@butler.legal
eservice@milnelawgroup.com krieck@butler.legal
Counsel for Defendant, Weathermaster rjorge@butler.legal
Building Products, Inc. tbarry@butler.legal
Counsel for Defendant, Don King's
Concrete, Inc.
Jayne A. Pittman, Esquire Bruce R. Calderon, Esquire
Natalie C. Fischer, Esquire D. Bryan Hills, Esquire
CONRY SIMBERG Audra R. Creech, Esquire
Two South Orange Avenue, Suite 300 Katrina McDowell, Esquire.
Orlando, FL 32801 MILBER MAKRIS PLOUSADIS &
Telephone: (407) 649-9797 SEIDEN, LLP
eserviceorl@conroysimberg.com 1900 NW Corporate Blvd., East Tower, Suite
jpittman@conroysimberg.com 440 Boca Raton, Florida 33431
mmaitland@conroysimberg.com Telephone: (561) 994-7310
nfischer@conroysimberg.com bcalderon@milbermakris.com
Counsel for Defendant, Advanced Wrapping dhill@milbermakris.com
and Concrete Solutions of Central Florida, acreech@milbermakris.com
Inc. Counsel for Defendant, Brown + Company
Architecture, Inc.
Chesley G. Moody, Jr., Esq. William M. Woods, Esq.
Nicholas S. Moulos, Esq. Jennifer E. Lulgjuraj, Esq.
MOODY & GRAF, P.A. THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM
1101 N. Lake Destiny Rd., Suite 200 WOODS
Maitland, FL 32751 100 S. Missouri Avenue, Suite 201
Telephone: (407) 755-6900 Clearwater, FL 33756
cmoody@moodygraf.com Telephone: (407)789-1830
nmoulos@moodygraf.com wwoods@willwoodslaw.com
kpollak@moodygraf.com jlulgjuraj@willwoodslaw.com
pmallion@moodygraf.com annelm@willwoodslaw.com
Counsel for Defendant, L & Jim Painting, pleadings@willwoodslaw.com
Inc. Counsel for Third-Party Defendant All
Glass Installation Corp.
5
128674932.1
S. Scott Ross, Esq. Cole J. Copertino, Esq.
GROELLE & SALMON, P.A. Richard L. Russo, Esq.
1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 320 WRIGHT, FULFORD, MOORHEAD &
Tampa, FL 33607 BROWN, P.A.
Telephone: (813) 849-7200 505 Maitland Avenue, Suite 1000
gstcourtdocs@gspalaw.com Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701
sross@gspalaw.com Telephone: (407) 425-0234
cebanks@gspalaw.com Facsimile: (407) 425-0260
Counsel for Defendant, Helberg Enterprises, ccopertino@wfmblaw.com
LLC cbraungart@wfmblaw.com
rrussso@wfmblaw.com
lwilliams@wfmblaw.com
Counsel for Defendant Well Hung Windows
& Doors
Vicki Lambert, Esq. Michael D. Ruel, Esq.
Alec Masson, Esq. Phillip S. Howell, Esq.
LUKS, SANTANIELLO, PETRILLO & Kyle R. Mcneal, Esq.
COHEN GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, TOMPKINS,
201 S Orange Avenue, Suite 400 BURR & SMITH, P.L.C.
Orlando, FL 32801 400 N. Ashley Dr., Suite 1000
Telephone: (407) 540-9170 Tampa, FL 33602
Facsimile: (407) 540-9171
Telephone: (813) 977-1200
LUKSORL-Pleadings@LS-Law.com
Facsimile: (813) 977-1288
AMasson@insurancedefense.net
JPestonit@insurancedefense.net tampaservice@gallowaylawfirm.com
Counsel for Defendant, Casey Hawkins phowell@gallowaylawfirm.com
Glass, Inc. kmcneal@gallowaylawfirm.com
Withdrawn Order Granted 5.17.21 mruel@gallowaylawfirm.com
Counsel for Third-Party Defendant, Casey
Hawkins Glass, Inc.
6
128674932.1
Timothy C. Ford, Esq. Andrew T. Marshall, Esq.
Andrew E. Holway, Esq. Sara W. Mapes, Esquire
Rocco Cafaro, Esq. HAMILTON, PRICE & MARSHALL,
Ron Espinal, Esq. P.A
HILL WARD HENDERSON 2400 Manatee Ave. W.
101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700 Bradenton, FL 34205
Tampa, Florida 33602 (941) 748-0550
Telephone: (813) 221-3900 (941) 745-2079-fax
Facsimile: (813) 221- 2900 Andrew@hamiltonpricelaw.com
tim.ford@hwhlaw.com Sara@hamiltonpricelaw.com
andrew.holway@hwhlaw.com atmservice@hamiltonpricelaw.com
rocco.cafaro@hwhlaw.com Nancy@hamiltonpricelaw.com
ron.espinal@hwhlaw.com Kelsey@hamiltonpricelaw.com
tracy.coale@hwhlaw.com Counsel for T&M Construction of Sanford,
Kathy.wernsing@hwhlaw.com Inc.
Jill.kuty@hwhlaw.com
derrick.calandra@hwhlaw.com
Counsel for Weintraub Inspections &
Forensic, Inc.
Thamir A. R. Kaddouri, Jr. Chesley G. Moody, Jr., Esq.
Penelope T. Rowlett Mai M. Le, Esq.
Beth Ann Tobey Moody & Graf, P.A.
Cynthia Rossi 1101 N. Lake Destiny Road, Suite 200
Law Office of Thamir A.R. Kaddouri, Jr. Maitland, FL 32751
P.A. Telephone: (407) 755-6900
3220 West Cypress Street Facsimile: (407) 755-6913
Tampa, FL 33607 cmoody@moodygraf.com
P. 813-879-5752 mle@moodygraf.com
F. 813-879-5707 kpollak@moodygraf.com
Thamir.kaddouri@tampalaw.org tdixon@moodygraf.com
service@tampalaw.org Counsel for Premier Plastering of Central
Florida, Inc
beth.tobey@tampalaw.org
Cynthia.rossi@tampalaw.org
Counsel for Defendant, Imperial Building
Corporation
7
128674932.1
Wayne M. Alder, Esq. Nicole Seropian, Esq.
Fisher Broyles, LLP Jennifer Shippole, Esq.
7668 NW 125th Way Law Office of Jennifer L. Shippole
Pompano Beach, FL 33076 14050 NW 14th Street, Suite 180
Telephone: (954) 603-6174 Sunrise, Florida 33323
Wayne.alder@fisherbroyles.com Phone: 954-417-3066 Ext. 4645
wmalder@bellsouth.net jlspleadings@fednat.com
Counsel for E.R.O. Construction, Inc. nseropian@fednat.com
jshippole@fednat.com
Attorney Atlantic Concrete Systems, Inc.
Chesley G. Moody, Jr., Esq.
Karen Pollack, Esq.
MOODY & GRAF, P.A.
1101 N. Lake Destiny Rd., Suite 200
Maitland, FL 32751
Telephone: (407) 755-6900
cmoody@moodygraf.com
kpollak@moodygraf.com
Counsel for Defendant, Wolfs Irrigation &
Landscaping Inc.
8
128674932.1
DEFENDANT/CROSSCLAIM PLAINTIFF, ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC’S,
UNVERIFIED ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT, BROWN + COMPANY
ARCHITECTURE, INC.’S, SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Defendant/Crossclaim Plaintiff, Royal Oak Homes, LLC (“Royal Oak”), pursuant to Rule
1.340, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby serves its Unverified Answers to
Defendant/Crossclaim Defendant, Brown + Company Architecture, Inc.’s (“Brown”), Second2 Set
of Interrogatories Numbers 1 through 12. Royal Oak states that discovery in this matter is ongoing
and the following responses are based on discovery available as of the date of this Response.
Further discovery or investigation may lead to the discovery of additional information, which may
result in additions or revisions to the responses. Therefore, Royal Oak reserves the right to
supplement or revise its responses with subsequently discovered information should it become
available. Royal Oak further states that it has interpreted each request in a reasonable manner and
good faith effort to provide that which Brown requests within the scope of the applicable rules of
civil procedure and this Court.
1. Please identify the person(s) answering these interrogatories by providing his or her
name, address, telephone number and, if applicable, the person’s official position or relationship
with the party to whom the interrogatories are directed.
ANSWER: Royal Oak states that these responses constitute corporate responses of
Royal Oak, contain information gathered from a variety of sources, and were
prepared with assistance of counsel.
2. State the name, address, and telephone number of every person and/or entity with
knowledge of the construction, specification and/or design of the Project and briefly describe each
person and/or entity’s scope of knowledge.
2
Although Brown styles these interrogatories as its “First” set of interrogatories to Royal Oak, Brown previously
served Royal Oak with its Amended First Set of Interrogatories in this action on October 18, 2021.
9
128674932.1
ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this request as overbroad, irrelevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it
seeks information relating to scopes of work not implicated by the allegations in the
Villas at Emerald Lake Homeowners Association, Inc.’s (the “Association”),
operative complaint. Subject to and without waiving such objection, Royal Oak states
that pursuant to Rule 1.340, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Royal Oak has
produced, or otherwise made available, non-privileged documents in its possession,
custody or control from which information responsive to this request relating to
scopes of work implicated by the allegations in the Association’s operative complaint
can be derived or ascertained with the same effort required by Brown.
3. State ROYAL OAK’s relationship with Avatar Properties, Inc. (“AV HOMES”),
as alleged in Paragraph 234 of Royal Oak’s Crossclaim, and identify the documents that
memorialize this relationship.
ANSWER: Royal Oak states that its relationship with Avatar Properties, Inc. is that
of principal and agent. Specifically, Avatar Properties, Inc. (“Avatar”) is an agent of
Royal Oak. Documents concerning this relationship are publicly available to Brown
through the Florida Division of Corporations website. In addition, Royal Oak will
produce, or otherwise make available, non-privileged documents in its possession,
custody or control concerning this relationship subject to execution of an agreeable
confidentiality agreement.
4. State all facts that support ROYAL OAK’s allegations that it has “standing to
enforce the contract,” alleged in Paragraph 234 of ROYAL OAK’s Crossclaim.
ANSWER: Royal Oak states that it has standing to enforce the Professional Services
Contract between Avatar and Brown (the “Contract”) because Avatar executed the
Contract on behalf of Royal Oak, as Avatar was Royal Oak’s agent with regard to
the Contract. Brown had knowledge of this agency relationship and that it was
performing work for Royal Oak, as Brown prepared its plans for Royal Oak. See
documents produced by Brown identified by Bates Numbers BCA 000009 – 000010
and BCA 000022.
5. Describe in detail each act, error or omission by BROWN which you contend
caused or contributed to the defects/deficiencies and damages at issue in the subject litigation.
ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. In addition,
Royal Oak states that it has not alleged that defects and deficiencies exist at the
Subject Property. Royal Oak’s claims against Brown are derivative of the
Association’s claims of defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope of work against
Royal Oak. Royal Oak denies liability as to the Association’s claims. However, as
10
128674932.1
stated in its Crossclaim, to the extent liability and damages resulting therefrom are
established by the Association, Brown is responsible. Accordingly, Royal Oak directs
Brown to the Association’s Complaint, Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the
accompanying documents filed in support of the Association’s claims, including the
Association’s expert report which delineates the defects and deficiencies alleged by
the Association to exist in Brown’s scope of work, and the deposition transcripts of
the Association’s expert, Felix Martin with Marcon Forensics, specifically pages 366-
418 of the June 15, 2021 deposition transcript and pages 769-805 of the October 28,
2021 deposition transcript where Brown’s counsel asked Mr. Martin questions
regarding the Association’s claimed acts, errors or omissions by Brown that caused
or contributed to the defects/deficiencies and damages at issue.
6. Describe in detail each act, error or omission by BROWN that ROYAL OAK
contends constituted a breach of BROWN’s standard of care at the Project.
ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Further, Royal
Oak has not alleged that Brown breached the standard of care applicable to its work
on the Subject Property. As stated in its Crossclaim, Royal Oak’s claims against
Brown, with the exception of its claim for breach of the duty to defend, are derivative
of the Association’s claims against Royal Oak. Royal Oak has denied liability as to
the Association’s claims. However, to the extent liability and damages resulting
therefrom are established by the Association, Brown is responsible and has breached
its standard of care. Accordingly, Royal Oak directs Brown to the Association’s
Complaint, Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the accompanying documents filed in
support of the Association’s claims, including the Association’s expert report, and the
deposition transcripts of the Association’s expert, Felix Martin with Marcon
Forensics, specifically pages 366-418 of the June 15, 2021 deposition transcript and
pages 769-805 of the October 28, 2021 deposition transcript where Brown’s counsel
asked Mr. Martin questions regarding the breaches alleged by the Association to have
been committed by Brown concerning its scope of work at the Subject Property.
7. Identify each specific provision of the contract that ROYAL OAK contends
BROWN breached, and state with specificity the factual basis for which ROYAL OAK contends
that BROWN breached each particular provision at the Project.
ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this request to the extent it seeks information
protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and
without waiving such objection, Royal Oak states that, with the exception of its claim
for breach of the duty to defend, its claims against Brown are derivative of the
Association’s claims of defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope of work against
Royal Oak. Royal Oak denies liability as to the Association’s claims. However, as
stated in its response to Interrogatory Number 10 of Brown’s Amended First Set of
Interrogatories to Royal Oak, to the extent liability and damages resulting therefrom
11
128674932.1
are established by the Association, Brown is responsible and has breached Section 1.1
of the Contract. Accordingly, Royal Oak directs Brown to the Association’s
Complaint, Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the accompanying documents filed in
support of the Association’s claims, including the Association’s expert report(s), and
the deposition transcripts of the Association’s expert, Felix Martin with Marcon
Forensics, specifically pages 366-418 of the June 15, 2021 deposition transcript and
pages 769-805 of the October 28, 2021 deposition transcript where Brown’s counsel
asked Mr. Martin questions regarding the defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope
of work alleged by the Association.
Further, by failing to defend Royal Oak in this action, Brown has breached Section 7
of the Contract. If the Association prevails on its claims against Royal Oak and Brown
refuses to indemnify and hold harmless Royal Oak, Brown will further breach Section
7 of the Contract. As discovery is ongoing, Royal Oak reserves the right to supplement
its answer to this interrogatory as discovery proceeds. Accordingly, Royal Oak is not
precluded in any manner from alleging that Brown breached any other provision of
the Contract.
8. Identify each specific provision of the Florida Building Code that ROYAL OAK
contends BROWN violated, and state with specificity the factual basis for which ROYAL OAK
contends that BROWN violated each particular provision at the Project.
ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this request to the extent it seeks information
protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and
without waiving such objection, Royal Oak states that it has not alleged that Brown
breached any applicable building code. Royal Oak’s claims against Brown, with the
exception of its claim for breach of the duty to defend, are derivative of the
Association’s claims of defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope of work against
Royal Oak. Royal Oak denies liability as to the Association’s claims. However, as
stated in its Crossclaim, to the extent that liability and damages resulting therefrom
are established by the Association, Brown is responsible. Accordingly, Royal Oak
directs Brown to the Association’s Complaint, Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the
accompanying documents filed in support of the Association’s claims, including the
Association’s expert report(s), and the deposition transcripts of the Association’s
expert, Felix Martin with Marcon Forensics, specifically pages 366-418 of the June
15, 2021 deposition transcript and pages 769-805 of the October 28, 2021 deposition
transcript where Brown’s counsel asked Mr. Martin questions regarding the alleged
violations of applicable building codes. Further requests for information responsive
to this interrogatory are more appropriately directed to the Association.
9. Describe in detail each and every alleged defect/deficiency at the Project which you
attribute to BROWN by providing the following information:
a. A description of the defect/deficiency including its location,
12
128674932.1
b. Identification of when the defect/deficiency was discovered
c. State who discovered the defect/deficiency
d. An explanation of what caused the defect/deficiency
e. Identification of any and all applicable local, state, and national building
code (including, but not limited to, the Florida Building Code, the State
Minimum Building Codes Act), as well as all industry standards which the
alleged defect/deficiency fails to comply with.
f. Explain the factual basis for which you contend BROWN is responsible.
g. Identify all damages related to the defect/deficiency, including costs that
will be incurred and/or have been incurred to rectify the defect/deficiency.
h. Identify whether it has been corrected, repaired, replaced, or otherwise
fixed, and state who fixed it.
ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this request to the extent it seeks information
protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and
without waiving such objection, Royal Oak states that, with the exception of its claim
for breach of the duty to defend, its claims against Brown are derivative of the
Association’s claims of defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope of work against
Royal Oak. Royal Oak denies liability as to the Association’s claims. However, as
stated in its Crossclaim, to the extent that liability and damages resulting therefrom
are established by the Association, Brown is responsible. Accordingly, Royal Oak
directs Brown the Association’s Complaint, Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the
accompanying documents filed in support of the Association’s claims, including the
Association’s expert report, and the deposition transcripts of the Association’s expert,
Felix Martin with Marcon Forensics, specifically pages 366-418 of the June 15, 2021
deposition transcript and pages 769-805 of the October 28, 2021 deposition transcript
where Brown’s counsel asked Mr. Martin questions regarding the defects and
deficiencies alleged to exist at the Subject Property. Further requests for information
responsive to this interrogatory are more appropriately directed to the Association.
10. Describe in detail each fact that ROYAL OAK relies upon to allege that BROWN
inspected, supervised and/or approved work that was not in accordance with the permitted and
applicable plans and specifications, building codes, manufacturer’s specifications and standards.
ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this request to the extent it seeks information
protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and
without waiving such objection, Royal Oak states that, with the exception of its claim
for breach of the duty to defend, its claims against Brown are derivative of the
Association’s claims of defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope of work against
Royal Oak. Royal Oak denies liability as to the Association’s claims. However, as
13
128674932.1
stated in its Crossclaim, to the extent that liability and damages resulting therefrom
are established by the Association, Brown is responsible. Accordingly, Royal Oak
directs Brown to the Association’s Complaint, Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the
accompanying documents filed in support of the Association’s claims, including the
Association’s expert report(s), and the deposition transcripts of the Association’s
expert, Felix Martin with Marcon Forensics, specifically pages 366-418 of the June
15, 2021 deposition transcript and pages 769-805 of the October 28, 2021 deposition
transcript where Brown’s counsel asked Mr. Martin questions regarding the defects
and deficiencies alleged to exist in Brown’s scope of work at the Subject Property.
Further requests for information responsive to this interrogatory are more
appropriately directed to the Association.
11. Identify any and all applicable plans and specifications that ROYAL OAK contends
BROWN did not comply with, and state with specificity the factual basis for which ROYAL OAK
contends that BROWN did not comply with the applicable plans and specifications at the Project.
ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this request to the extent it seeks information
protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and
without waiving such objection, Royal Oak states that it has not alleged that Brown
has not complied with applicable plans and specifications. Rather, as stated in its
Crossclaim, Royal Oak’s claims against Brown are derivative of the Association’s
claims of defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope of work against Royal Oak. Royal
Oak has denied liability as to the Association’s claims. However, to the extent that
liability and damages resulting therefrom are established by the Association, Brown
is responsible. Accordingly, Royal Oak directs Brown to the Association’s Complaint,
Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the accompanying documents filed in support of the
Association’s claims, including the Association’s expert reports, and the deposition
transcripts of the Association’s expert, Felix Martin with Marcon Forensics,
specifically pages 366-418 of the June 15, 2021 deposition transcript and pages 769-
805 of the October 28, 2021 deposition transcript where Brown’s counsel asked Mr.
Martin questions regarding the defects and deficiencies alleged to exist in Brown’s
scope of work at the Subject Property. Further requests for information responsive
to this interrogatory are more appropriately directed to the Association.
12. Identify any and all applicable manufacturer’s specifications and standards that
ROYAL OAK contends BROWN did not comply with, and state with specificity the factual basis
for which ROYAL OAK contends that BROWN did not comply with manufacturer’s
specifications and standards and specifications at the Project.
ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this request to the extent it seeks information
protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and
without waiving such objection, Royal Oak states that it has not alleged that Brown
14
128674932.1
failed to comply with manufacturer’s specifications and standards. Rather, as stated
in its Crossclaim, Royal Oak’s claims against Brown are derivative of the
Association’s claims of defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope of work against
Royal Oak. Royal Oak has denied liability as to the Association’s claims. However, to
the extent that liability and damages resulting therefrom are established by the
Association, Brown is responsible. Accordingly, Royal Oak directs Brown to the
Association’s Complaint, Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the accompanying documents
filed in support of the Association’s claims, including the Association’s expert reports,
and the deposition transcripts of the Association’s expert, Felix Martin with Marcon
Forensics, specifically pages 366-418 of the June 15, 2021 deposition transcript and
pages 769-805 of the October 28, 2021 deposition transcript where Brown’s counsel
asked Mr. Martin questions regarding the defects and deficiencies alleged to exist in
Brown’s scope of work at the Subject Property. Further requests for information
responsive to this interrogatory are more appropriately directed to the Association.
15
128674932.1
VERIFICATION PAGE
Royal Oak Homes, LLC
BY:
Mike Mansfield, Vice President of
Construction
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF _________________
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of ☐ physical presence
or ☐ online notarization, this _______ day of March 2022, by Mike Mansfield, Vice President of
Construction, Royal Oak Homes, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of the
company, who being duly sworn, states under oath that the facts set forth in the above answers to
interrogatories to the best of his knowledge are true and correct. He is ☐ personally known to me
or ☐ has produced ________________ as identification.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
(Notary Seal)
16
128674932.1
Preview
Filing # 145947226 E-Filed 03/17/2022 05:25:57 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA VILLAS AT EMERALD LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO.: 2020-CA-002942-ON ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, f/k/a AVH ACQUISITION LLC; 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., 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 OAK HOMES, LLC, f/k/a AVH ACQUISITION, Cross Claim Plaintiff, v. 128674932.1 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; WOLF’S IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING, INC., a Florida corporation; BROWN + COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC., a Florida corporation; EXPERT PAINTING & PRESSURE WASHING, INC., a Florida corporation, Cross Claim Defendants. / WEATHERMASTER BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Florida Corporation; DON KING’S CONCRETE INC., a Florida Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. ALL GLASS INSTALLATION COPRP., a Florida corporation; CASEY HAWKINS GLASS, INC., a Florida corporation; DEAN NESBIT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; HELBERG ENGERPRISES, 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; E.R.O. CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida Corporation; LIOS CONCRETE CORP., a Florida Corporation; and ATLANTIC CONCRETE SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Third-Party Defendants. 2 128674932.1 / DEFENDANT/CROSSCLAIM PLAINTIFF, ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC’S, NOTICE OF SERVING UNVERIFIED ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT/CROSSCLAIM DEFENDANT, BROWN + COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC.’S, SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Defendant/Crossclaim Plaintiff, Royal Oak Homes, LLC (“Royal Oak”), pursuant to Rule 1.340, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby serves its Unverified Answers to Defendant/Crossclaim Defendant, Brown + Company Architecture, Inc.’s (“Brown”), Second1 Set of Interrogatories Numbers 1 through 12. /s/ James Michael Walls Lannie D. Hough Jr. Florida Bar No. 149470 Robin H. Leavengood Florida Bar No. 0547751 CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 4221 W. Boy Scout Boulevard Tampa, FL 33607-5780 Telephone: (813) 223-7000 Facsimile: (813) 229-4133 lhough@carltonfields.com nbonilla@carltonfields.com rleavengood@carltonfields.com ejohnson@carltonfields.com mwalls@carltonfields.com bporter@carltonfields.com Attorneys for Defendant, Royal Oak Homes, LLC 1 Although Brown styles these interrogatories as its “First” set of interrogatories to Royal Oak, Brown previously served Royal Oak with its Amended First Set of Interrogatories in this action on October 18, 2021. 3 128674932.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 17, 2022, the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court by using the E-filing Portal, which will electronically serve this document to all registered counsel of record. /s/ James Michael Walls SERVICE LIST Phillip E. Joseph, Esquire Paul Sidney Elliott Evan J. Small, Esquire P.O. Box 274204 Jeffrey A. Widelitz, Esq. Tampa, FL 33688-4204 Allana D.E. Smith, Esquire P. 813-265-1314 BALL JANIK LLP F. 813-961-1103 201 E. Pine Street, Suite 600 pse@psejd.com Orlando, FL 32801 Counsel for Defendant, Hugh MacDonald Telephone: (407) 455-5664 Construction, Inc. (HMC) pjoseph@balljanik.com esmall@balljanik.com jwidelitz@balljanik.cim Denise Anderson, Esquire asmith@balljanik.com Ashley Mattingly, Esquire ypalmer@balljanik.com BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG cbetancourt@balljanik.com LLP bburton@balljanik.com 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 2300 dmikesell@balljanik.com Tampa, Florida 33602 orlandodocket@balljanik.com Telephone: (813) 281-1900 Counsel for Plaintiff, Villas at Emerald Lake danderson@butler.legal Homeowners Association, Inc. amattingly@butler.legal jjacobs@butler.legal rjorge@butler.legal Co-Counsel for Defendant, Hugh MacDonald Construction, Inc. 4 128674932.1 Peter J. Kapsales, Esquire Denise Anderson, Esquire Margaret M. Efta, Equire David A. Mercer, Esq. MILNE LAW GROUP, P.A. BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG 301 E. Pine Straeet, Suite 525 LLP Orlando, Florida 32801 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 2300 Telephone: (321) 558-7700 Tampa, Florida 33602 pkapsales@milnelawgroup.com Telephone: (813) 281-1900 mefta@milnelawgroup.com danderson@butler.legal mmilne@milnelawgroup.com dmercer@butler.legal eservice@milnelawgroup.com krieck@butler.legal Counsel for Defendant, Weathermaster rjorge@butler.legal Building Products, Inc. tbarry@butler.legal Counsel for Defendant, Don King's Concrete, Inc. Jayne A. Pittman, Esquire Bruce R. Calderon, Esquire Natalie C. Fischer, Esquire D. Bryan Hills, Esquire CONRY SIMBERG Audra R. Creech, Esquire Two South Orange Avenue, Suite 300 Katrina McDowell, Esquire. Orlando, FL 32801 MILBER MAKRIS PLOUSADIS & Telephone: (407) 649-9797 SEIDEN, LLP eserviceorl@conroysimberg.com 1900 NW Corporate Blvd., East Tower, Suite jpittman@conroysimberg.com 440 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 mmaitland@conroysimberg.com Telephone: (561) 994-7310 nfischer@conroysimberg.com bcalderon@milbermakris.com Counsel for Defendant, Advanced Wrapping dhill@milbermakris.com and Concrete Solutions of Central Florida, acreech@milbermakris.com Inc. Counsel for Defendant, Brown + Company Architecture, Inc. Chesley G. Moody, Jr., Esq. William M. Woods, Esq. Nicholas S. Moulos, Esq. Jennifer E. Lulgjuraj, Esq. MOODY & GRAF, P.A. THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM 1101 N. Lake Destiny Rd., Suite 200 WOODS Maitland, FL 32751 100 S. Missouri Avenue, Suite 201 Telephone: (407) 755-6900 Clearwater, FL 33756 cmoody@moodygraf.com Telephone: (407)789-1830 nmoulos@moodygraf.com wwoods@willwoodslaw.com kpollak@moodygraf.com jlulgjuraj@willwoodslaw.com pmallion@moodygraf.com annelm@willwoodslaw.com Counsel for Defendant, L & Jim Painting, pleadings@willwoodslaw.com Inc. Counsel for Third-Party Defendant All Glass Installation Corp. 5 128674932.1 S. Scott Ross, Esq. Cole J. Copertino, Esq. GROELLE & SALMON, P.A. Richard L. Russo, Esq. 1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 320 WRIGHT, FULFORD, MOORHEAD & Tampa, FL 33607 BROWN, P.A. Telephone: (813) 849-7200 505 Maitland Avenue, Suite 1000 gstcourtdocs@gspalaw.com Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 sross@gspalaw.com Telephone: (407) 425-0234 cebanks@gspalaw.com Facsimile: (407) 425-0260 Counsel for Defendant, Helberg Enterprises, ccopertino@wfmblaw.com LLC cbraungart@wfmblaw.com rrussso@wfmblaw.com lwilliams@wfmblaw.com Counsel for Defendant Well Hung Windows & Doors Vicki Lambert, Esq. Michael D. Ruel, Esq. Alec Masson, Esq. Phillip S. Howell, Esq. LUKS, SANTANIELLO, PETRILLO & Kyle R. Mcneal, Esq. COHEN GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, TOMPKINS, 201 S Orange Avenue, Suite 400 BURR & SMITH, P.L.C. Orlando, FL 32801 400 N. Ashley Dr., Suite 1000 Telephone: (407) 540-9170 Tampa, FL 33602 Facsimile: (407) 540-9171 Telephone: (813) 977-1200 LUKSORL-Pleadings@LS-Law.com Facsimile: (813) 977-1288 AMasson@insurancedefense.net JPestonit@insurancedefense.net tampaservice@gallowaylawfirm.com Counsel for Defendant, Casey Hawkins phowell@gallowaylawfirm.com Glass, Inc. kmcneal@gallowaylawfirm.com Withdrawn Order Granted 5.17.21 mruel@gallowaylawfirm.com Counsel for Third-Party Defendant, Casey Hawkins Glass, Inc. 6 128674932.1 Timothy C. Ford, Esq. Andrew T. Marshall, Esq. Andrew E. Holway, Esq. Sara W. Mapes, Esquire Rocco Cafaro, Esq. HAMILTON, PRICE & MARSHALL, Ron Espinal, Esq. P.A HILL WARD HENDERSON 2400 Manatee Ave. W. 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700 Bradenton, FL 34205 Tampa, Florida 33602 (941) 748-0550 Telephone: (813) 221-3900 (941) 745-2079-fax Facsimile: (813) 221- 2900 Andrew@hamiltonpricelaw.com tim.ford@hwhlaw.com Sara@hamiltonpricelaw.com andrew.holway@hwhlaw.com atmservice@hamiltonpricelaw.com rocco.cafaro@hwhlaw.com Nancy@hamiltonpricelaw.com ron.espinal@hwhlaw.com Kelsey@hamiltonpricelaw.com tracy.coale@hwhlaw.com Counsel for T&M Construction of Sanford, Kathy.wernsing@hwhlaw.com Inc. Jill.kuty@hwhlaw.com derrick.calandra@hwhlaw.com Counsel for Weintraub Inspections & Forensic, Inc. Thamir A. R. Kaddouri, Jr. Chesley G. Moody, Jr., Esq. Penelope T. Rowlett Mai M. Le, Esq. Beth Ann Tobey Moody & Graf, P.A. Cynthia Rossi 1101 N. Lake Destiny Road, Suite 200 Law Office of Thamir A.R. Kaddouri, Jr. Maitland, FL 32751 P.A. Telephone: (407) 755-6900 3220 West Cypress Street Facsimile: (407) 755-6913 Tampa, FL 33607 cmoody@moodygraf.com P. 813-879-5752 mle@moodygraf.com F. 813-879-5707 kpollak@moodygraf.com Thamir.kaddouri@tampalaw.org tdixon@moodygraf.com service@tampalaw.org Counsel for Premier Plastering of Central Florida, Inc beth.tobey@tampalaw.org Cynthia.rossi@tampalaw.org Counsel for Defendant, Imperial Building Corporation 7 128674932.1 Wayne M. Alder, Esq. Nicole Seropian, Esq. Fisher Broyles, LLP Jennifer Shippole, Esq. 7668 NW 125th Way Law Office of Jennifer L. Shippole Pompano Beach, FL 33076 14050 NW 14th Street, Suite 180 Telephone: (954) 603-6174 Sunrise, Florida 33323 Wayne.alder@fisherbroyles.com Phone: 954-417-3066 Ext. 4645 wmalder@bellsouth.net jlspleadings@fednat.com Counsel for E.R.O. Construction, Inc. nseropian@fednat.com jshippole@fednat.com Attorney Atlantic Concrete Systems, Inc. Chesley G. Moody, Jr., Esq. Karen Pollack, Esq. MOODY & GRAF, P.A. 1101 N. Lake Destiny Rd., Suite 200 Maitland, FL 32751 Telephone: (407) 755-6900 cmoody@moodygraf.com kpollak@moodygraf.com Counsel for Defendant, Wolfs Irrigation & Landscaping Inc. 8 128674932.1 DEFENDANT/CROSSCLAIM PLAINTIFF, ROYAL OAK HOMES, LLC’S, UNVERIFIED ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT, BROWN + COMPANY ARCHITECTURE, INC.’S, SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES Defendant/Crossclaim Plaintiff, Royal Oak Homes, LLC (“Royal Oak”), pursuant to Rule 1.340, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby serves its Unverified Answers to Defendant/Crossclaim Defendant, Brown + Company Architecture, Inc.’s (“Brown”), Second2 Set of Interrogatories Numbers 1 through 12. Royal Oak states that discovery in this matter is ongoing and the following responses are based on discovery available as of the date of this Response. Further discovery or investigation may lead to the discovery of additional information, which may result in additions or revisions to the responses. Therefore, Royal Oak reserves the right to supplement or revise its responses with subsequently discovered information should it become available. Royal Oak further states that it has interpreted each request in a reasonable manner and good faith effort to provide that which Brown requests within the scope of the applicable rules of civil procedure and this Court. 1. Please identify the person(s) answering these interrogatories by providing his or her name, address, telephone number and, if applicable, the person’s official position or relationship with the party to whom the interrogatories are directed. ANSWER: Royal Oak states that these responses constitute corporate responses of Royal Oak, contain information gathered from a variety of sources, and were prepared with assistance of counsel. 2. State the name, address, and telephone number of every person and/or entity with knowledge of the construction, specification and/or design of the Project and briefly describe each person and/or entity’s scope of knowledge. 2 Although Brown styles these interrogatories as its “First” set of interrogatories to Royal Oak, Brown previously served Royal Oak with its Amended First Set of Interrogatories in this action on October 18, 2021. 9 128674932.1 ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this request as overbroad, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it seeks information relating to scopes of work not implicated by the allegations in the Villas at Emerald Lake Homeowners Association, Inc.’s (the “Association”), operative complaint. Subject to and without waiving such objection, Royal Oak states that pursuant to Rule 1.340, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Royal Oak has produced, or otherwise made available, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody or control from which information responsive to this request relating to scopes of work implicated by the allegations in the Association’s operative complaint can be derived or ascertained with the same effort required by Brown. 3. State ROYAL OAK’s relationship with Avatar Properties, Inc. (“AV HOMES”), as alleged in Paragraph 234 of Royal Oak’s Crossclaim, and identify the documents that memorialize this relationship. ANSWER: Royal Oak states that its relationship with Avatar Properties, Inc. is that of principal and agent. Specifically, Avatar Properties, Inc. (“Avatar”) is an agent of Royal Oak. Documents concerning this relationship are publicly available to Brown through the Florida Division of Corporations website. In addition, Royal Oak will produce, or otherwise make available, non-privileged documents in its possession, custody or control concerning this relationship subject to execution of an agreeable confidentiality agreement. 4. State all facts that support ROYAL OAK’s allegations that it has “standing to enforce the contract,” alleged in Paragraph 234 of ROYAL OAK’s Crossclaim. ANSWER: Royal Oak states that it has standing to enforce the Professional Services Contract between Avatar and Brown (the “Contract”) because Avatar executed the Contract on behalf of Royal Oak, as Avatar was Royal Oak’s agent with regard to the Contract. Brown had knowledge of this agency relationship and that it was performing work for Royal Oak, as Brown prepared its plans for Royal Oak. See documents produced by Brown identified by Bates Numbers BCA 000009 – 000010 and BCA 000022. 5. Describe in detail each act, error or omission by BROWN which you contend caused or contributed to the defects/deficiencies and damages at issue in the subject litigation. ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. In addition, Royal Oak states that it has not alleged that defects and deficiencies exist at the Subject Property. Royal Oak’s claims against Brown are derivative of the Association’s claims of defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope of work against Royal Oak. Royal Oak denies liability as to the Association’s claims. However, as 10 128674932.1 stated in its Crossclaim, to the extent liability and damages resulting therefrom are established by the Association, Brown is responsible. Accordingly, Royal Oak directs Brown to the Association’s Complaint, Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the accompanying documents filed in support of the Association’s claims, including the Association’s expert report which delineates the defects and deficiencies alleged by the Association to exist in Brown’s scope of work, and the deposition transcripts of the Association’s expert, Felix Martin with Marcon Forensics, specifically pages 366- 418 of the June 15, 2021 deposition transcript and pages 769-805 of the October 28, 2021 deposition transcript where Brown’s counsel asked Mr. Martin questions regarding the Association’s claimed acts, errors or omissions by Brown that caused or contributed to the defects/deficiencies and damages at issue. 6. Describe in detail each act, error or omission by BROWN that ROYAL OAK contends constituted a breach of BROWN’s standard of care at the Project. ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Further, Royal Oak has not alleged that Brown breached the standard of care applicable to its work on the Subject Property. As stated in its Crossclaim, Royal Oak’s claims against Brown, with the exception of its claim for breach of the duty to defend, are derivative of the Association’s claims against Royal Oak. Royal Oak has denied liability as to the Association’s claims. However, to the extent liability and damages resulting therefrom are established by the Association, Brown is responsible and has breached its standard of care. Accordingly, Royal Oak directs Brown to the Association’s Complaint, Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the accompanying documents filed in support of the Association’s claims, including the Association’s expert report, and the deposition transcripts of the Association’s expert, Felix Martin with Marcon Forensics, specifically pages 366-418 of the June 15, 2021 deposition transcript and pages 769-805 of the October 28, 2021 deposition transcript where Brown’s counsel asked Mr. Martin questions regarding the breaches alleged by the Association to have been committed by Brown concerning its scope of work at the Subject Property. 7. Identify each specific provision of the contract that ROYAL OAK contends BROWN breached, and state with specificity the factual basis for which ROYAL OAK contends that BROWN breached each particular provision at the Project. ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving such objection, Royal Oak states that, with the exception of its claim for breach of the duty to defend, its claims against Brown are derivative of the Association’s claims of defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope of work against Royal Oak. Royal Oak denies liability as to the Association’s claims. However, as stated in its response to Interrogatory Number 10 of Brown’s Amended First Set of Interrogatories to Royal Oak, to the extent liability and damages resulting therefrom 11 128674932.1 are established by the Association, Brown is responsible and has breached Section 1.1 of the Contract. Accordingly, Royal Oak directs Brown to the Association’s Complaint, Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the accompanying documents filed in support of the Association’s claims, including the Association’s expert report(s), and the deposition transcripts of the Association’s expert, Felix Martin with Marcon Forensics, specifically pages 366-418 of the June 15, 2021 deposition transcript and pages 769-805 of the October 28, 2021 deposition transcript where Brown’s counsel asked Mr. Martin questions regarding the defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope of work alleged by the Association. Further, by failing to defend Royal Oak in this action, Brown has breached Section 7 of the Contract. If the Association prevails on its claims against Royal Oak and Brown refuses to indemnify and hold harmless Royal Oak, Brown will further breach Section 7 of the Contract. As discovery is ongoing, Royal Oak reserves the right to supplement its answer to this interrogatory as discovery proceeds. Accordingly, Royal Oak is not precluded in any manner from alleging that Brown breached any other provision of the Contract. 8. Identify each specific provision of the Florida Building Code that ROYAL OAK contends BROWN violated, and state with specificity the factual basis for which ROYAL OAK contends that BROWN violated each particular provision at the Project. ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving such objection, Royal Oak states that it has not alleged that Brown breached any applicable building code. Royal Oak’s claims against Brown, with the exception of its claim for breach of the duty to defend, are derivative of the Association’s claims of defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope of work against Royal Oak. Royal Oak denies liability as to the Association’s claims. However, as stated in its Crossclaim, to the extent that liability and damages resulting therefrom are established by the Association, Brown is responsible. Accordingly, Royal Oak directs Brown to the Association’s Complaint, Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the accompanying documents filed in support of the Association’s claims, including the Association’s expert report(s), and the deposition transcripts of the Association’s expert, Felix Martin with Marcon Forensics, specifically pages 366-418 of the June 15, 2021 deposition transcript and pages 769-805 of the October 28, 2021 deposition transcript where Brown’s counsel asked Mr. Martin questions regarding the alleged violations of applicable building codes. Further requests for information responsive to this interrogatory are more appropriately directed to the Association. 9. Describe in detail each and every alleged defect/deficiency at the Project which you attribute to BROWN by providing the following information: a. A description of the defect/deficiency including its location, 12 128674932.1 b. Identification of when the defect/deficiency was discovered c. State who discovered the defect/deficiency d. An explanation of what caused the defect/deficiency e. Identification of any and all applicable local, state, and national building code (including, but not limited to, the Florida Building Code, the State Minimum Building Codes Act), as well as all industry standards which the alleged defect/deficiency fails to comply with. f. Explain the factual basis for which you contend BROWN is responsible. g. Identify all damages related to the defect/deficiency, including costs that will be incurred and/or have been incurred to rectify the defect/deficiency. h. Identify whether it has been corrected, repaired, replaced, or otherwise fixed, and state who fixed it. ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving such objection, Royal Oak states that, with the exception of its claim for breach of the duty to defend, its claims against Brown are derivative of the Association’s claims of defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope of work against Royal Oak. Royal Oak denies liability as to the Association’s claims. However, as stated in its Crossclaim, to the extent that liability and damages resulting therefrom are established by the Association, Brown is responsible. Accordingly, Royal Oak directs Brown the Association’s Complaint, Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the accompanying documents filed in support of the Association’s claims, including the Association’s expert report, and the deposition transcripts of the Association’s expert, Felix Martin with Marcon Forensics, specifically pages 366-418 of the June 15, 2021 deposition transcript and pages 769-805 of the October 28, 2021 deposition transcript where Brown’s counsel asked Mr. Martin questions regarding the defects and deficiencies alleged to exist at the Subject Property. Further requests for information responsive to this interrogatory are more appropriately directed to the Association. 10. Describe in detail each fact that ROYAL OAK relies upon to allege that BROWN inspected, supervised and/or approved work that was not in accordance with the permitted and applicable plans and specifications, building codes, manufacturer’s specifications and standards. ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving such objection, Royal Oak states that, with the exception of its claim for breach of the duty to defend, its claims against Brown are derivative of the Association’s claims of defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope of work against Royal Oak. Royal Oak denies liability as to the Association’s claims. However, as 13 128674932.1 stated in its Crossclaim, to the extent that liability and damages resulting therefrom are established by the Association, Brown is responsible. Accordingly, Royal Oak directs Brown to the Association’s Complaint, Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the accompanying documents filed in support of the Association’s claims, including the Association’s expert report(s), and the deposition transcripts of the Association’s expert, Felix Martin with Marcon Forensics, specifically pages 366-418 of the June 15, 2021 deposition transcript and pages 769-805 of the October 28, 2021 deposition transcript where Brown’s counsel asked Mr. Martin questions regarding the defects and deficiencies alleged to exist in Brown’s scope of work at the Subject Property. Further requests for information responsive to this interrogatory are more appropriately directed to the Association. 11. Identify any and all applicable plans and specifications that ROYAL OAK contends BROWN did not comply with, and state with specificity the factual basis for which ROYAL OAK contends that BROWN did not comply with the applicable plans and specifications at the Project. ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving such objection, Royal Oak states that it has not alleged that Brown has not complied with applicable plans and specifications. Rather, as stated in its Crossclaim, Royal Oak’s claims against Brown are derivative of the Association’s claims of defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope of work against Royal Oak. Royal Oak has denied liability as to the Association’s claims. However, to the extent that liability and damages resulting therefrom are established by the Association, Brown is responsible. Accordingly, Royal Oak directs Brown to the Association’s Complaint, Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the accompanying documents filed in support of the Association’s claims, including the Association’s expert reports, and the deposition transcripts of the Association’s expert, Felix Martin with Marcon Forensics, specifically pages 366-418 of the June 15, 2021 deposition transcript and pages 769- 805 of the October 28, 2021 deposition transcript where Brown’s counsel asked Mr. Martin questions regarding the defects and deficiencies alleged to exist in Brown’s scope of work at the Subject Property. Further requests for information responsive to this interrogatory are more appropriately directed to the Association. 12. Identify any and all applicable manufacturer’s specifications and standards that ROYAL OAK contends BROWN did not comply with, and state with specificity the factual basis for which ROYAL OAK contends that BROWN did not comply with manufacturer’s specifications and standards and specifications at the Project. ANSWER: Royal Oak objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving such objection, Royal Oak states that it has not alleged that Brown 14 128674932.1 failed to comply with manufacturer’s specifications and standards. Rather, as stated in its Crossclaim, Royal Oak’s claims against Brown are derivative of the Association’s claims of defects and deficiencies in Brown’s scope of work against Royal Oak. Royal Oak has denied liability as to the Association’s claims. However, to the extent that liability and damages resulting therefrom are established by the Association, Brown is responsible. Accordingly, Royal Oak directs Brown to the Association’s Complaint, Chapter 558 Notice of Claim, the accompanying documents filed in support of the Association’s claims, including the Association’s expert reports, and the deposition transcripts of the Association’s expert, Felix Martin with Marcon Forensics, specifically pages 366-418 of the June 15, 2021 deposition transcript and pages 769-805 of the October 28, 2021 deposition transcript where Brown’s counsel asked Mr. Martin questions regarding the defects and deficiencies alleged to exist in Brown’s scope of work at the Subject Property. Further requests for information responsive to this interrogatory are more appropriately directed to the Association. 15 128674932.1 VERIFICATION PAGE Royal Oak Homes, LLC BY: Mike Mansfield, Vice President of Construction STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF _________________ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of ☐ physical presence or ☐ online notarization, this _______ day of March 2022, by Mike Mansfield, Vice President of Construction, Royal Oak Homes, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of the company, who being duly sworn, states under oath that the facts set forth in the above answers to interrogatories to the best of his knowledge are true and correct. He is ☐ personally known to me or ☐ has produced ________________ as identification. Notary Public My Commission Expires: (Notary Seal) 16 128674932.1