Complaint,Petition: RICHARD WALLACH VS GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY

On April 24, 2024 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Wallach, Richard, and Geico Indemnity Company, for Declaratory Judgment in the District Court of Miami-Dade County.

Preview
Filing# 171438836 E-Filed 04/20/2023 01:58:52 PM

INTHE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17L 'th

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE-23-007688

RICHARD WALLACH,

Plaintiff.

VS.

GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Defendant.
I

CORRECTED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Plaintiff,RICHARD WALLACH, by and through his undersigned

counsel,and hereby files this First Amended Complaint againstDefendant, GEICO INDEMNITY

COMPANY, and for his First Amended Complaint alleges:

BACKGROUND
1. This is an action for declaratoryrelief which is properlybrought in circuit court per Fla.

Stats. § 86.011 and 86.021.

2. At all times material,Plaintiffwas a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida,over the age

of eighteen(18) years, and sui juris.

3. At all times material, Defendant was a foreign insurance company authorized to do

business in Florida and doing substantial business in Florida,includingbut not limited to

in Broward County, Florida.

4. On or before April 7, 2018, Plaintiff purchased a policy of motor vehicle insurance from

Defendant with policy number 4010571463 (hereinafter
"the GEICO policy"),under

*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 04/20/2023 01:58:52 PM.****
which policyPlaintiff is a named insured. The GEICO policywas in full force and effect

on June 22,2020. A copy of the GEICO policyis attached as Exhibit A.
5. Plaintiff is entitled to stacked Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage under the

GEICO policyin the amount of $50,000.00, and Defendant has denied the existence of

such full stacked Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage in that amount on the GEICO

policy.

6. Defendant was and is under a contractual duty to Plaintiff to extend full stacked

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage at the limits under the
Bodily Injuryliability

GEICO policyas defined by Florida Statute(s).

7. Venue is proper in Broward County, Florida under Fla. Stat. § 47.051 because Defendant

GEICO in Broward County.
has an agent or other representative

8 On June 22,2020, at approximately1:00 PM, Plaintiff was properlyoperatinghis motor

vehicle southbound on State Road 5 in the second through lane, Miami, Miami Dade

County, Florida.

9. At that time and place,Karla Quintero operatedher motor vehicle southbound on State

Road 5 in the lane to the left o f Plaintiff in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida,and made

an abruptrightturn, causingher motor vehicle to strike Plaintiff's motor vehicle.

COUNT I: DECLARATORY RELIEF
10. Paragraphs 1 -9 are incorporatedby reference as though fullyset forth herein.

11. This is an action for declaratory
relief pursuant to Florida Statutes § 86.011.

12. Florida law permits plaintiffs
to plead in the alternative. Fla. Stat. § 86.111 specifically

states that "[t]heexistence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment for

2
..
relief.'
declaratory

13. At all times material, there was a business contract between Plaintiff and Defendant

imposing certain duties and obligations
upon said parties.

14. On June 22,2020, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he sustained

injuries.

15. Defendant was notified that Plaintiff was seeking benefits under the full stacked

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage portionof the GEICO policy and Defendant

advised that he would not be afforded any such full stacked coverage, only offering

$10,000.00 in "non-stacked" coverage.

16. Defendant assignedthe claim number 0235578550101237 to the claim regardingthe June

22,2020 motor vehicle accident in which Plaintiff "the GEICO
was injured(hereinafter

claim").

17. On June 8, 2022, Defendant supplied Plaintiff's counsel with documents relatingto the

GEICO policy,among which was an affidavit of coverage statingthat Plaintiff had only

$10,000.00 of "non-stacked" Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage available under

the GEICO claim or the GEICO policy for the June 22,2020 motor vehicle accident and a

form marked "UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE (UND

with FLOIR form number M9FL (04-13) (hereinafter
"the

M9FL form"), which bears what is alleged to be Plaintiff's
..
electronic "DocuSign'

dated April 7, 2018.
signature, A copy of the affidavit of coverage is attached as Exhibit B
and a copy ofthe M9FL form is attached as Exhibit C.

18. Florida Statute § 627.727 is the statute regardinguninsured and underinsured motor vehicle

3
insurance. § 627.727 mandates that insurance companies, includingDefendant, that issue

uninsured and underinsured motor vehicle insurance coverage must provide stacked

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage in an amount equal to the Bodily Injury

coverage afforded by the policy,unless the insurer providesthe insured a very
liability

specificnotice of the insured's rightto such coverage prior to purchase, and the insured

subsequentlyrejectssuch coverage in writing.Mandatory documentation requirements

the law requiresthat Defendant notifythe named insured
must be followed. Additionally,

at least annually of his or her options as to Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage.

Such notice shall be part of, and attached to the notice of premium, shall provide for a

means to allow the insured to request such coverage, shall be approved by the OIR, and

shall be provided in a manner meeting statutory requirements. The Statute states:

No motor vehicle liability insurance policywhich providesbodily injuryliability
coverage shall be delivered or issued for deliveryin this state with respect to any
specificallyinsured or identified motor vehicle registeredor principally garaged in
this state unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein or

supplemental thereto for the protectionof persons insured thereunder who are
legallyentitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor
vehicles because of Bodily Injury,sickness,or disease,includingdeath,resulting
therefrom.

However, the coverage required under this section is not applicablewhen, or to
the extent that,an insured named in the policy makes a written rejectionof the
coverage on behalf of at! insureds under the policy... .

... The rejectionor selection of tower limits shall be made on a form approved
.

by the ofjice.The form shall fully advise the applicant of the nature of the
coverage and shall state that the coverage is equal to Bodily Injury liability
limits
unless tower limits are requested or the coverage is rejected. The heading of the
form shall be in 12-point bold type and shall state:
..
'You are electingnot to
purchase certain valuable coverage which protects you and your family or you
are purchasing uninsured motorist limits !ess than your Bodily Injury liability
limits when you sign this form. Please read carefu!4."

If this form is signed by a named insured, it will be conclusivelypresumed that

4
there was an informed, knowing rejectionof coverage or election of lower limits
on behalf ofall insureds. The insurer shall notifythe named insured at least annually
of her or his optionsas to the coverage requiredby this section. Such notice shall
be part of,and attached to, the notice ofpremium, shall provide for a means to allow
the insured to request such coverage, and shall be given in a manner approved by
the office. Receipt of this notice does not constitute an affirmative waiver of the
insured's rightto uninsured motorist coverage where the insured has not signed a
form.
selection or rejection

§ 627.727, Fla. Stat. (Emphasis added).

19. Whenever any motor vehicle insurance policyis sold with Bodily Injuryliability
coverage,

whether online or in person, the aforesaid provisions of § 627.727 are still mandated.

Florida Statute § 668.50(8)(b)states:

cir
[i]fa provisionof law other than this section requiresa record to be posted or
displayed in a certain manner; to be sent, communicated, or transmitted by a
specifiedmethod; or to contain information that is formatted in a certain
manner, the following rules apply:

The record must be posted or displayedin the manner specifiedin the other
1.
..

provisionof law.

20. These statutes put the burden on the insurer,rather than the insured,to provide the insured

with the mandatory notice language before the insured makes any selections of

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage below the Bodily Injurylimits. These statutes

also requirethe insurer to notifythe named insured at least annuallyof the optionsto obtain

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage in a manner requiredby the statute and

approved by the 0 ffice o f Insurance Regulation.

21. When applicantsapply with Defendant for insurance on the telephone or via the internet,

Defendant presents the prospective insured with recommended insurance coverage

packages, which routinelydefault to Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage being

excluded.

5
22. During this process, the notice requiredby Section 627.727, Fla. Stat.,is never displayed

to the insured
applicant/prospective either on the M9FL form or through any other means.

23. On or priorto June 22,2020, an employee or agent o f Defendant, during an oral telephone

conversation with Plaintiff,
while Plaintiff was applying for the GEICO policy,insisted

that he immediately make a decision as to whether to accept or rejectsuch coverage during

said oral telephoneconversation,without first providingany written document explaining

such coverage.

24. on or priorto April 7, 2018, an employee or agent of Defendant, during
In the alternative,

while Plaintiff was modifying,renewing, or
an oral telephone conversation with Plaintiff,

changing the coverage on the GEICO policy,insisted that he immediately make a decision

as to whether to accept or rejectsuch coverage during said oral telephone conversation,

without first providingany written document explainingsuch coverage.

25. In the alternative,on or prior to June 22,2020, an electronic computer interface and/or

Web site designed and provided by Defendant, which Plaintiff was using to apply for the

GEICO policy,requiredPlaintiff to make a decision as to whether to accept or reject

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage without first providing any written document

containingthe words "You are electingnot to purchase certain valuable coverage which

protects you and your family or you are purchasinguninsured motorist limits less than your

limits
bodilyinjuryliability when you sign this form. Please read carefully."

26. In the alternative,on or priorto June 22,2020, an electronic computer interface and/or

Web site designed and providedby Defendant, which Plaintiff was using to modify, renew,

or change the coverage on the GEICO policy,requiredPlaintiff to make a decision as to

6
whether to accept or reject Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage without first

providing any written document containingthe words "You are electingnot to purchase

certain valuable coverage which protects you and your family or you are purchasing

uninsured motorist limits less than your bodily injuryliability
limits when you sign this

form. Please read carefully."

27. Defendant issued to Plaintiffthe GEICO policy,which was in full force and effect on June

22,2020. This policy includes Bodily Injuryliability
coverage but excludes full stacked

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage at the limits.
Bodily Injuryliability

28. After Plaintiff purchased the GEICO policy,Defendant directed him to a web-based,

electronic signatureinterface. The M9FL form presentedin this process was not approved

by the OIR as requiredby § 627.727.

29. The M9FL form used in this process was an unchangeable,static form prefilled
with the

selection of less than full stacked Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage filled in la

Defendant and in direct conflict with Fla. Stat. § 627.727(1).

30. The M9FL form, through the electronic "DocuSign" signatureinterface provided by

Defendant, did not allow for Plaintiff to electronicallyselect any level of

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage, stacked or non-stacked, but was instead a

prefilledform which did not give Plaintiff any option to obtain any higher level of

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage. Defendant's system made it impossible to

deselect the prefilledoption or to change the coverage selection;Plaintiff could only

passivelyaccept or else cancel.

31. Defendant did not comply with the strict requirementsof Fla. Stat. § 627.727(1),to fully

7
advise through written notice, on a form approved by the Florida Office of Insurance

who purchase motor vehicle insurance before such applicantseither
Regulation,applicants

select lower limits of Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage, or rejectsuch coverage

and
entirely, to requirethem to sign such form containingthe specific
language as set out

within the statute. Defendant did not comply with the requirement that these insureds sign

such form containingthe specificlanguage as set out within the statute.

32. Plaintiff claims that by virtue of Defendant's failure to comply with its statutory mandate,

the M9FL form and any rejectionofUninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage contained

therein is void and invalid under Fla. Stat. § 627.727. Plaintiff further claims that by virtue

o f such conduct, Plaintiffis entitled to stacked Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage

available at the Bodily Injuryliability
limits that were selected,now and retroactively
from

the moment of Defendant's failure to comply
- the moment ofthe policy'sinception.

33. Plaintiffalso claims that Defendant failed to properly follow Fla. Stat. § 627.727 and notify

Plaintiff at least annuallyof his optionsas to Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage,

that Defendant's notice was not part of and attached to the notice of premium, that

Defendant's notice did not provide for a means to allow Plaintiffto request such coverage,

and that Defendant's notice was not given in a manner approved by the Office of Insurance

Regulation,as requiredby Fla. Stat. § 627.727.

34. Defendant has denied coverage for or withheld full stacked Uninsured/Underinsured

Motorist benefits from Plaintiff,
relatingto the GEICO claim, citingto the M9FL form

which Defendant claims validlyrejectsfull stacked Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist

coverage.

8
35. On the facts of this case and as a result of Defendant's actions and inactions,Plaintiff has

been placed in doubt as to his rightsunder the GEICO policyand is in immediate need of

judicialdetermination as to those rights,
the status ofthose rightsor other equitableor legal

relations thereunder.

36. Plaintiff has an actual, present, adverse and antagonisticinterest in the sought-after

declaration of whether full stacked Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage should be

afforded to him under the GEICO policy,and this interest is directlyantagonisticto

Defendant, who has an actual,present, adverse, and antagonisticinterest in declaringthat

there is not full stacked Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage available under the

GEICO policy.

37. The antagonisticand adverse interests are all before the Court by proper process or class

as
representation Plaintiff is an insured under the GEICO policy and Defendant is the

insurer.

38. Due to Defendant's denial of coverage for this loss,Plaintiff was forced to retain the

undersignedcounsel and is obligatedto pay a reasonable fee for said services.

39. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.428, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant reasonable

attorneys'fees and costs for the filingand prosecutionof this action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff,RICHARD WALLACH, respectfully
requests that this Court:

a) Take jurisdictionover this matter for purposes of rendering a declaratorydecree

that.

b) Defendant, through its agent(s)and/or employee(s),requiredPlaintiff to make a

decision as to whether to accept or rejectUninsured/Underinsured Motorist

9
coverage without first providingwritten document explainingsuch coverage in the

manner requiredby Section 627.727, Fla. Stat.;

CI the procedure employed by Defendant in this case fails to comply with the

requirementsof Section 627.727, Fla. Stat.;

d) the M9FL form used in this case fails to comply with the requirements of Section

627.727 Fla. Stat,and that the M9FL form is void and invalid under § 627.727;

e) the M9FL form used in this case was not presentedin the manner approved by the

OIR and was therefore not the approved form as requiredby Section 627.727, Fla.

Stat.;

as mandated in Section
Defendant failed to comply with its statutory responsibility,

627.727, Fla. Stat.,to properly advise Plaintiff at least annually ofhis options as to

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage in a manner approved by the OIR;

g) as a result of a) through f) above, collectively and
or individually, by operationof

law under Fla. Stat. § 627.727, of Uninsured/Underinsured
any purportedrejection

Motorist coverage contained on the M9FL form used in this case is void and

invalid;

h) as a result of and by operationof
or individually,
a)through f)above, collectively

law under Fla. Stat. § 627.727, the GEICO policy has stacked

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage available at the Bodily Injuryliability

limits on that policyfor the motor vehicle accident of June 22,2020;

i) as a result of a)through f) above, collectively Plaintiff has stacked
or individually,

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage available to him at the Bodily Injury

10
limits under the
liability GEICO policy,for the GEICO he
claim, for the injuries

sustained in the June 22,2020 motor vehicle accident;and

j, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 627.428, 624.155,57.105, and 57.041, Defendant shall

issue payment to Plaintiff and the undersigned law firms for all reasonable

attorneys'fees and costs incurred in securing in Plaintiff's favor any judgment,

order,or decree; and/or any other relief in law and/or in equitywhich this Court

deems justand proper pursuant to governing law and the GEICO policy.

COUNT II: FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM
40. Paragraphs 1 -9 are incorporatedby reference as though fullyset forth herein.

41. Florida law requiresthat every Bodily Injuryliability
automobile insurance policyissued

in this state include Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage, unless the named insured

written notice of the nature ofthe coverage and knowingly rejectssuch
receives specified

coverage in writing by signing a rejectionform approved by the Office of Insurance

Regulation,which contains specificlanguage requiredby statute.

42. Fla. Stat. § 627.727 is the statute regardingUninsured/Underinsured Motorist insurance.

Fla. Stat. § 627.727 mandates that insurance companies, includingDefendant, which issue

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage must provide such coverage, "stacked",in an

amount equal to the coverage afforded by the policy,unless
Bodily Injury liability

applicants for such coverage are provided a very specific notice, and mandatory

documentation requirementsare followed. The Statute states:

"No motor insurance policywhich providesbodilyinjuryliability
vehicle liability

coverage shall be delivered or issued for deliveryin this state with respect to any
insured or identified motor vehicle registered
specifically garaged in
or principally

11
this state unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein or

supplemental thereto for the protectionof persons insured thereunder who are

legallyentitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor
vehicles because of bodily injury,sickness, or disease, including death, resulting

therefrom. However, the coverage requiredunder this section is not applicable

when, or to the extent that, an insured named in the policy makes a written

rejectionof the coverage on behalf of at! insureds under the policy \..A The

rejectionor selection of tower limits shall be made on a form approved by the

The form shallfullyadvise the applicantof the nature of the coverage and
office.
limits unless !ower
shall state that the coverage is equal to bodilyinjuryliability

limits are requested or the coverage is rejected.The heading of the form shall be
in 12-point bold type and shall state: "You are electingnot to purchase certain

valuable coverage which protects you and your famity or you are purchasing
uninsured motorist limits !ess limits when you
than your bodilyinjuryliability

sign this form. Please read carefully. If this form signed by a named insured,
..
is

it will be conclusivelypresumed that there was an informed, knowing rejectionof

coverage or election of lower limits on behalf of all insureds." (emphasis added)

43. At all times material, Defendant knowingly and intentionally
implemented a procedure

which misled and made misrepresentationsto its insureds, including Plaintiff,by

knowingly and intentionally failing to include the legally mandated

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage, by defaultingits quote to a rejectionof

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage, and not advising its insureds, including

o f this default setting
Plaintiff, priorto selling
their policies.

44. Defendant did not advise its of their rightsas to the legally
insureds, includingPlaintiff,

required Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage and did not provide the required

written statutory notice priorto the sale and issuance o f the policy.

45. Defendant further failed to properly advise its insureds, including Plaintiff,as to the

12
benefits of Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage, and/or activelymisinformed their

as to these benefits.
insureds,includingPlaintiff,

46. Defendant implemented a generalbusiness practiceof utilizing
unapproved forms in the

coverage confirmation process and activelypersuaded and directed insureds, including

from reviewing the documents.
Plaintiff,

47. That which is allegedto be Plaintiff's signatureon the M9FL form dated April 7,2018 was

the result of fraud,trickeryand/or deceit on the part of Defendant.

48. Each of these actions individuallyand collectively
constitutes a violation of Florida law.

Each of these actions were intended by Defendant to fraudulentlyinduce, and did

to purchase GEICO insurance (without
induce, insureds, includingPlaintiff,
fraudulently

the legallyrequiredUninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage),and caused them harm.

Defendant's fraudulent acts included, but are not limited to, the following:

a) Defendant positionsand markets itself as a favorable alternative to other insurance

companies, providingauto insurance faster and at a lower rate than its competitors

b) When prospectiveclients go online to GEICO.com to inquireabout auto insurance,

Defendant's computer system is designed to retrieve the applicant'scurrent

insurance coverage and create a quote that,in defiance of Florida law and the

statutory presumption in Fla. Stat. § 627.727(1), automatically excludes

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage without the applicant'sknowledge.

CI Defendant uses a computer program that creates a default coverage package for

their prospectiveinsureds. Regardless of the coverage previouslyowned by the

prospectiveinsured and regardlessofthe coverages requested,this default coverage

13
excludes Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage. In
package always illegally

displaying the quote online, Defendant displays "N/A" next to

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage, which is outrightfalse,misleadingand

deceptive.

d) and purposefullydoes not provide the statutorily
Defendant intentionally required

disclosure regardingUninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage priorto selling
the

insurance or requiringthe prospectiveinsured to decide whether to accept or reject

such coverage, and in fact falselystates in its computer online process that the

selections are those of the prospectiveinsured,when in fact they are the selections

of Defendant.

e) Defendant then has its insureds navigate through multiple online screens to

purportedlysigna "UM rejection
form". The form and the online interface required

to access it violate Florida law and were not approved by the Office of Insurance

Regulation.

The online screens intentionally
and deceptivelystate that the form shows the

insured's chosen selections and optionsdespiteDefendant automaticallyexcluding

..
Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage from the quote and displaying"N/A'

next to that coverage.

g) Defendant then prefillsan illegaland unapproved form that has eliminated

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage and places its insured's name on the

signatureline ofthis form without the insured ever seeingit. Furthermore, the form

indicates that the insured has had the opportunityto
falsely fill out the form, but the

14
insured cannot do so because the form is alreadyfilled out by Defendant and the

prefilledrejection of Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage cannot be

changed by the insured.
electronically

49. Based on the sellingprocess utilized by Defendant described above, Plaintiff appliedfor

and received the GEICO policy from Defendant without the legallyrequired levels of

insurance coverage.

50. Defendant does not displaythe form that informs a prospectiveinsured oftheir rightto UM
coverage before the completion of the sale,describes the nature of the coverage and the

options as mandated by Fla. Stat. § 627.727. Defendant misleadinglytells its insureds,

including Plaintiff,that this form is with the coverages and data you have
"pre-filled

selected and provided." Defendant further misleadingly states to its insureds, including

that this form contains "your chosen selections and options,"
Plaintiff, despitethe fact that

Defendant intentionallyfills the form out excluding Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist

coverage, and tricks the insureds in further violation of Fla. Stat. § 627.727.

51. Defendant intends to induce
Through this series ofnon-disclosures and misrepresentations,

and does induce its to purchase automobile insurance without
insureds,includingPlaintiff,

the insureds understanding that they are entitled to Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist

coverage, and that they are not fullycovered in compliance with Florida law.

52. In this manner, Defendant benefits from sales of insurance policiesin the state of Florida

without complying with the mandates of Florida law, and does so by wrongfully depriving

its mandated Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage to
insureds of the statutorily

which these insureds,includingPlaintiff,
are entitled.

15
53. will rely on these representations
Defendant intends that the insureds, includingPlaintiff,

to abandon their efforts to obtain the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage to which

they are legallyentitled.

54. Defendant employed the proceduresidentified in the above Paragraphsin order to gain

unfair profitby depriving Plaintiff of his rightfulcoverage, and Plaintiff has been injured

by his reliance on Defendant's false and misleading nondisclosures and false

representations.

55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's fraudulent misrepresentations,
Plaintiffhas

been injuredand suffered damages in the form of deprivationof insurance coverage to

which he has a statutory right,as well as being burdened with out of pocket medical bills

and other uncompensated expenses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, RICHARD WALLACH, demands judgment against

Defendant, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY for compensatory damages, prejudgment interest

damages as allowed by law, costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just,and
on liquidated

demands a trial by jury of all issues triable as of rightby jury.Furthermore, pursuant to Fla. Stat.

Sees. § 627.428, § 624.155, § 57.105, and § 57.041, Defendant, GEICO INDEMNITY

COMPANY, shall issue payment to Plaintiff, RICHARD WALLACH, and the undersigned law

firms for all reasonable attorneys'fees and costs incurred in securing in Plaintiff's favor any

judgment, order, or decree.

COUNT III: BAD FAITH CLAIM
56. Paragraphs 1 -9 are incorporatedby reference as though fullyset forth herein.

57. On several occasions, but most recentlyon June 8,2022, Defendant issued a denial to

16
Plaintiff regarding the GEICO claim on the grounds that full stacked

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage does not exist on the GEICO policy.This

denial was wrongful as described in Counts I and II above.

58. At all times material,Defendant failed to settle the GEICO claim beyond the proffered

$10,000.00 in "non-stacked" Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage when, under all

the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairlyand honestly

towards its and with due regard for his interests.
insureds,Plaintiff,

59. At all times material,Defendant made material misrepresentations
to its insured,Plaintiff,

for the purpose and with the intent of effectingsettlement of the GEICO claim on less

favorable terms than those provided in the GEICO policy.

60. At all times material, Defendant misrepresented pertinent facts or insurance policy

provisionsrelatingto coverages at and with such
issue, both to Plaintiff specifically

frequency as to indicate a generalbusiness practice.

61. On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations listing

the above-described violations and describingthe facts and circumstances surrounding

those violations.

62. All conditions precedenthave been complied with to pursue the claim as outlined in this

Complaint.

63. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions in denying the GEICO claim,

Plaintiff has been injuredand suffered damages in the form of deprivationof insurance

coverage to which he has a statutory right,as well as being burdened with out of pocket

medical bills and other uncompensated expenses.

17
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, RICHARD WALLACH, demands judgment against

Defendant, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, for compensatory damages, prejudgment interest

damages as allowed by law, costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just,and
on liquidated

demands a trial by jury of all issues triable as of rightby jury.Furthermore, pursuant to Fla. Stat.

Sees. § 627.428, § 624.155, § 57.105, and § 57.041, Defendant, GEICO INDEMNITY

COMPANY, shall issue payment RICHARD WALLACH,
to Plaintiff, and the undersigned law

firms for all reasonable attorneys'fees and costs incurred in securing in Plaintiff's favor any

judgment, order, or decree.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 20,2023, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing
was filed through the Florida Courts E-FilingPortal which will electronically
serve a copy to all

counsel of record.

/s/ Luke T.Moreau, Esq.
Luke T. Moreau, Esq.
Florida Bar No.. 108241
LAW OFFICES OF LUKE T. MOREAU, ESQ.
Counsel for the Plaintiff
1761 N. Young Circle,Suite 3-343
Hollywood, FL 33020
Phone: (954) 406-6757
Fax: (954) 212-9703
luke@lukemoreaulaw.com
kiara@lukemoreaulaw.com
ana@lukemoreaulaw.com

SILVERSTEIN, SILVERSTEIN
& SILVERSTEIN, P.A.
18
504 Aventura Corporate Center
20801 Biscayne Boulevard
Aventura, Florida 33180
MIAMI DADE - (305) 935-2500
BROWARD - (954)463-1333
FACSIMILE - (305) 935-3214
gsilverstein@ssspa-law.com
gfresco@ssspa-law.com
By: s/ GREGG A. SILVERSTEIN

Florida Bar #821853

Attorney for Plaintiff

THE POWELL LAW FIRM, P.A.

17024 SW 80L,th
Court
Palmetto Bay, Florida 33157
Tel. 305-232-0131
Fax. 305-232-0191
Brett@powellappeals.com
/s/ Brett C. Powell

BRETT C. POWELL
Fla. Bar No.. 610917

19
- -

xh
C-PIIFI OCOVIPS---
Claim Number: 0235578550101237 Date Of Loss: 6/22/2020
Adjuster: nd45
Policyholder: RICHARD S WALLACH
AND ROWENA WALLACH
Policy Number: 4010571463

Policy Term Start Date: 2/24/2020
Company: GEICO Indemnity Insurance Company

S. Dudley Date Requested: 07/08/2020
Date Processed: 07/16/2020
REGION 6 UNDERWRITING RESPONSE TO CLAIMS
REQUEST FOR F.S. 627.4137
COPY OF THE POLICY
The Policy Declarations sheet has been electronicallyforwarded to Claims for
Claim Number 0235578550101237, Policy Number 4010571463, and issued
to RICHARD S WALLACH AND ROWENA WALLACH based upon records in
our computer data in our files and was in effect on the date of loss
06/22/2020.

The policy contract, amendments and endorsements, also electronically
forwarded to Claims, are standard forms with information particularto Policy
Number 4010571463 and issued to RICHARD S WALLACH AND ROWENA
WALLACH and was in effect the date of loss 06/22/2020.

S. Dudley
Underwriting Department
6R(CO.
geico.corn
Tel: 1-800-841-3000 Declarations Page
This is a description of your coverage.
Please retain for your records.
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY
One GEICO Center
Policy Number: 4010-57-14-63
Macon, GA 31295-0001
Coverage Period:
02-24-20 through 08-24-20
Your coverage begins and ends at 12:01 am local time at the
Date Issued: March 23,2020 address of the named insured.

RICHARD S WALLACH AND ROWENA Endorsement Effective: 03-23-20
WALLACH
13850 SW 100TH AVE
MIAMI FL 33176-6717

Email Address:

Named Insured Additional Driver
RichardS Wallach Ian P Wallach
Rowena Wallach

Vehicles VIN Vehicle Location Finance Companv/
Lienholder
1 2015 Nissan Versa Note Miami FL 33176
2 2007 Dodge Caliber Miami FL 33176

Coveraqes* Limits and/or Deductibles Vehicle 1 Vehicle 2

Bodily Injury Liability
Each Person/Each Occurrence $25,000/$50,000 $506.90 $450.40

Property Damage Liability $25,000 $535.10 $490.70
Medical Payments $1,000 $81.70 $93.10
Personal Injury Protection Option N/$1,000 $399.50 $480.20
Work Loss Excluded For Insured Ded/Insd&Rel

Uninsured Motorist/Nonstacked
Each Person/Each Occurrence $10,000/$20,000 $79.00 $90.20

Comprehensive $500 Ded $66.30
$1,000 Ded $89.60
Collision $1,000 Ded $413.80

T-G Coverages Continued on B

Case Info

Judge

CA13 - Downtown Miami - Judge Brinkley, Tanya Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 24, 2024

Case Filing Date

April 24, 2024

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: RICHARD WALLACH VS GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties