Complaint,Petition: KEZIA GOMEZ VS JUAN ALONSO ET AL

On May 17, 2024 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Gomez, Kezia, and Alonso, Juan, Geico General Insurance Company, for Contract & Indebtedness in the District Court of Miami-Dade County.

Preview
Filing# 169310449 E-Filed 03/21/2023 10:22:11 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE 17L ,th

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.:

KEZIA GOMEZ,

Plaintiff.

VS.

JUAN ALONSO and
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants.
I

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, KEZIA
Plaintiff, GOMEZ, by and through her undersigned counsel, and

hereby files this Complaint against Defendants, JUAN ALONSO (hereinafter"Defendant

ALONSO") and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter"Defendant

GEICO"), and for her 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 ALONSO was a resident of Miami-Dade County, over the

age of eighteen(18)years, and sui juris.

4. At all times material,Defendant ALONSO was and is the owner or operator of an uninsured

*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 03/21/2023 10:22:09 PM.****
auto.

5. At all times material,Defendant GEICO was a foreigninsurance company authorized to

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

to in Broward County, Florida.

6. On or before June 17, 2018, Plaintiff purchased a policyof motor vehicle insurance from

Defendant GEICO with policy number 4548267204 (hereinafter
"the GEICO policy"),

under which policyPlaintiff is a named insured. The GEICO policywas in full force and

effect on March 19, 2021. A copy ofthe GEICO policy is attached as Exhibit A.
7. Plaintiff is entitled to stacked Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage under the

GEICO policy in the amount of $10,000.00, and Defendant GEICO has denied the

existence of such stacked Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage in that or any amount

on the GEICO policy.

8 Defendant GEICO was and is under a contractual duty to Plaintiff to extend stacked

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage under the GEICO policy as defined by Florida

Statute(s).

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

GEICO in Broward County.
has an agent or other representative

COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT ALONSO
10. Paragraphs 1 -9 are incorporatedby reference as though fullyset forth herein.

11. On March 19,2021, at approximately2:39 PM, Plaintiff was properlystopped northbound

on 6696 NW 186' -th
Street,in an unincorporatedarea of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

12. On March 19, 2021, Defendant ALONSO negligentlyoperated his motor vehicle

2
southbound on 6696 NW 1861 -th
Street,in an unincorporatedarea of Miami-Dade County,

Florida,and backed up, causinghis motor vehicle to strike Plaintiff's motor vehicle.

13. At that time and place, Defendant ALONSO negligentlymaintained his motor vehicle,

causinghis motor vehicle to strike Plaintiff's motor vehicle.

14. As a proximate result of Defendant ALONSO's negligence,Plaintiff suffered serious

bodily injuryand resultingpain and suffering,disability,
disfigurement,mental anguish,

loss of the capacityfor the enjoyment of life,loss of the abilityto earn money, and

aggravationof a previouslyexistingcondition. The losses suffered by Plaintiff are either

permanent or continuingand Plaintiff will suffer such losses in the future.

15. As a proximate result of Defendant ALONSO's negligence,Plaintiff has sustained a

permanent injurywithin a reasonable degree of medical probability.

KEZIA GOMEZ, demands judgment againstDefendant, JUAN
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff,

ALONSO, for compensatory damages, prejudgment interest on liquidateddamages as allowed by

law, costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just,and demands a trial by jury of all issues

triable as of rightby jury.

COUNT II: DECLARATORY RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT GEICO
16. Paragraphs 1-15 are incorporatedby reference as though fullyset forth herein.

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

18. 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

..
relief.'
declaratory

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

3
GEICO imposing certain duties and obligations
upon said parties.

20. On March 19, 2021, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which she

sustained injuries.

21. Defendant GEICO was notified that Plaintiff was seeking benefits under the

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage portionof the GEICO policy and Defendant

GEICO advised that she would not be afforded any such coverage.

22. Defendant GEICO assignedthe claim number 0632556990000001 to the claim regarding

the March 19,2021 motor vehicle accident in which Plaintiff was injured(hereinafter
"the

GEICO claim").

23. On January 13, 2022, Defendant GEICO suppliedPlaintiff's counsel with documents

relatingto the GEICO policy,among which was an affidavit of coverage statingthat

Plaintiff had no Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage available under the GEICO

claim or the GEICO policy for the March 19, 2021 motor vehicle accident and a form

"
marked "UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE (UM)

with FLOIR form number M9FL (04-13)(hereinafter"the
M9FL form"),which bears what

is allegedto be Plaintiff's electronic dated June 17, 2018.
"DocuSign" signature, A copy

of the affidavit of coverage is attached as Exhibit B and a copy of the M9FL form is

attached as Exhibit C.

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

insurance. § 627.727 mandates that insurance companies, includingDefendant GEICO,

that issue uninsured and underinsured motor vehicle insurance coverage must provide

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

4
coverage afforded by the policy,unless the insurer provides the insured a
Injuryliability

very specificnotice of the insured's rightto such coverage priorto purchase, and the

insured subsequently rejects such coverage in writing. Mandatory documentation

requirementsmust be followed. Additionally,the law requiresthat Defendant GEICO

notify the named insured 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 o f Bodily Injury,sickness,or disease,includingdeath, resulting
therefrom.

However, the coverage requiredunder this section is not applicablewhen, or to
the extent that,an insured named in the policymakes 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 Bodi4 Injuryliability
limits
unless tower limits are requestedor the coverage is rejected. The heading of the
form shall be in 12-pointbold 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 carefully."

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

5
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
selection or rejectionform.

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

25. 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 followingrules apply:

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

provision of law.

26. 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 annuallyofthe optionsto obtain

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage in a manner required by the statute and

approved by the 0 ffice of Insurance Regulation.

27. When applicantsapply with Defendant GEICO for insurance on the telephone or via the

internet,Defendant GEICO presents the prospectiveinsured with recommended insurance

coverage packages,which routinelydefault to Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage

being excluded.

28. During this process, the notice required by Section 627.727, Fla. Stat.,is never displayed

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

6
29. On orpriorto March 19, 2021, an employee or agent ofDefendant GEICO, during an oral

while Plaintiff was applying for the
telephoneconversation with Plaintiff, GEICO policy,

insisted that she immediately make a decision as to whether to accept or rejectsuch

coverage during said oral telephone conversation, without first providing any written

document explainingsuch coverage.

30. on or priorto June 17,2018, an employee or agent o f Defendant
In the alternative, GEICO,

during an oral telephone conversation with Plaintiff,while Plaintiff was modifying,

renewing, or changing the coverage on the GEICO policy,insisted that she immediately

make a decision as to whether to accept or rejectsuch coverage during said oral telephone

conversation,without first providingany written document explainingsuch coverage.

31. on or priorto
In the alternative, March 19, 2021, an electronic computer interface and/or

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

for the GEICO policy,requiredPlaintiffto 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 when you signthis form. Please read carefully."
bodilyinjuryliability

32. on or priorto
In the alternative, March 19, 2021, an electronic computer interface and/or

Web site designed and provided by Defendant GEICO, which Plaintiff was using to

modify, renew, or change the coverage on 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

7
to purchase certain valuable coverage which protects you and your family or you are

purchasinguninsured motorist limits less than limits when you
your bodilyinjuryliability

sign this form. Please read carefully."

33. Defendant GEICO issued to Plaintiffthe GEICO policy,which was in full force and effect

on March 19, 2021. This policy includes Bodily Injuryliability
coverage but excludes

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage.

34. After Plaintiff purchased the GEICO policy,Defendant GEICO directed her to a web-

based, electronic signatureinterface. The M9FL form presented in this process was not

approved by the OIR as requiredby § 627.727.

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

selection ofno Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage filled in bv Defendant GEICO

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

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

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

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

form which did not give Plaintiff any option to obtain Uninsured/Underinsured
prefilled

Motorist coverage. Defendant GEICO's system made it impossibleto deselect the prefilled

option or to change the coverage selection;Plaintiff could only passivelyaccept or else

cancel.

37. Defendant GEICO did not comply with the strict requirementsof Fla. Stat. § 627.727(1),

to fully advise through written notice, on a form approved by the Florida Office of

Insurance Regulation,applicantswho purchase motor vehicle insurance before such

8
applicantseither select lower limits of Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage, or

and to requirethem to sign such form containingthe specific
rejectsuch coverage entirely,

language as set out within the statute. Defendant GEICO did not comply with the

requirementthat these insureds sign such form containingthe specificlanguage as set out

within the statute.

38. Plaintiff claims that by virtue of Defendant GEICO'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. Plaintifffurther claims that

by virtue of such conduct, Plaintiffis entitled to stacked Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist

coverage available at the limits that were selected,now and
Bodily Injury liability

from the
retroactively moment of Defendant GEICO's failure to comply
- the moment of

the policy'sinception.

39. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant GEICO failed to properlyfollow Fla. Stat. § 627.727

and notifyPlaintiff at least annually o f her options as to Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist

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

premium, that Defendant GEICO's notice did not provide for a means to allow Plaintiffto

request such coverage, and that Defendant GEICO's notice was not given in a manner

approved by the Office of Insurance Regulation,as requiredby Fla. Stat. § 627.727.

40. Defendant GEICO has denied coverage for or withheld Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist

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

Defendant GEICO Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage.
claims validlyrejects

41. On the facts of this case and as a result of Defendant GEICO's actions and inactions,

9
Plaintiff has been placed in doubt as to her rightsunder the GEICO policy and is in

immediate need of judicialdetermination as to those rights,the status of those rightsor

other equitableor legalrelations thereunder.

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

declaration o f whether Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage should be afforded to

her under the GEICO policy,and this interest is directlyantagonisticto Defendant GEICO,

who has an actual,present, adverse, and antagonistic
interest in declaringthat there is no

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage available under the GEICO policy.

43. The antagonistic
and adverse interests are all before the Court by proper process or class

as
representation Plaintiff is an insured under the GEICO policyand Defendant GEICO is

the insurer.

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

the undersigned counsel and is obligatedto pay a reasonable fee for said services.

45. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 627.428, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant GEICO

and prosecutionof this action.
reasonable attorneys'fees and costs for the filing

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff,KEZIA GOMEZ, respectfully
requests that this Court:

a) Take jurisdiction
over this matter for purposes of rendering a declaratorydecree

that.

b) Defendant GEICO, through its agent(s)and/or employee(s), required Plaintiff to

make a decision as to whether to accept or rejectUninsured/Underinsured Motorist

coverage without first providingwritten document explainingsuch coverage in the

manner requiredby Section 627.727, Fla. Stat.;

10
CI the procedure employed by Defendant GEICO 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.;

Defendant GEICO failed to comply with its statutory as mandated
responsibility,

in Section 627.727, Fla. Stat.,to properly advise Plaintiff at least annually o f her

optionsas to Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage in a manner approved by

the OIR;

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

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 a)through f) above, collectively and by operationof
or individually,

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

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage available at the Bodily Injuryliability

limits on that policy for the motor vehicle accident of March 19, 2021;

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

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

11
limits under the
liability GEICO policy,for the GEICO she
claim, for the injuries

sustained in the March 19,2021 motor vehicle accident; and

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

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 equity which this Court

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

COUNT III: FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM AGAINST
DEFENDANT GEICO

46. Paragraphs1-15 are by reference
incorporated as though fullyset forth herein.

47. Florida law requiresthat every Bodily Injuryliability
automobile insurance policy issued

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

written notice ofthe nature of the coverage and knowingly rejects
receives specified such

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

Regulation,which contains specific
language requiredby statute.

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

Fla. Stat. § 627.727 mandates that insurance companies, including Defendant GEICO,

which issue Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage must provide such coverage,

"stacked", in an amount equalto the Bodily Injuryliability
coverage afforded by the policy,

unless applicantsfor such coverage are provided a very specificnotice,and mandatory

documentation requirementsare followed. The Statute states:

"No motor vehicle liability
insurance policy which providesbodily injuryliability

coverage shall be delivered or issued for deliveryin this state with respect to any

12
insured or identified motor vehicle registered
specifically or 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 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 aif insureds under the policy I...1The

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

The form sha!! fu!!yadvise the applicantof the nature of the coverage and
office.
shall state that the coverage is equal to bodilyinjury Nabilitylimits unless tower

limits are requested or the coverage is rejecte,LThe heading of the form shall be
in 12-pointbold 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 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)
49. At all times material, Defendant GEICO knowingly and intentionally
implemented a

procedure which misled and made misrepresentations
to its insureds, includingPlaintiff,

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 sellingtheir policies.

50. Defendant GEICO of their rightsas to the
did not advise its insureds,includingPlaintiff,

legallyrequired Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage and did not provide the

requiredwritten statutory notice priorto the sale and issuance of the policy.

13
51. Defendant GEICO further failed to properly advise its as to
insureds,includingPlaintiff,

the benefits of Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage, and/or activelymisinformed

as to these benefits.
their insureds,includingPlaintiff,

52. Defendant GEICO unapproved forms
implemented a generalbusiness practiceofutilizing

in the coverage confirmation process and activelypersuaded and directed insureds,

from reviewing the documents.
includingPlaintiff,

53. That which is allegedto be Plaintiff's signatureon the M9FL form dated June 17, 2018

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

54. Each o f these actions individuallyand collectively
constitutes a violation o f Florida law.

Each ofthese actions were intended by Defendant GEICO to induce, and did
fraudulently

to purchase
fraudulentlyinduce, insureds, includingPlaintiff, GEICO insurance (without

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

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

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

insurance companies, providing auto insurance faster and at a lower rate than its

competitors.

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

Defendant GEICO's computer system is designedto retrieve the applicant's
current

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's
knowledge.

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

14
for their prospectiveinsureds. Regardlessofthe coverage previouslyowned by the

prospectiveinsured and regardlessofthe coverages requested,this default coverage

excludes Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage. In
package always illegally

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

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage, which is outrightfalse,misleadingand

deceptive.

d) Defendant GEICO and purposefullydoes not provide the statutorily
intentionally

required disclosure regarding Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage priorto

sellingthe insurance or requiringthe prospectiveinsured to decide whether to

accept or rejectsuch coverage, and in fact falselystates in its computer online

process that the selections are those o f the prospectiveinsured, when in fact they

are the selections of Defendant GEICO.

e) Defendant GEICO then has its insureds navigatethrough multipleonline screens to

purportedlysign a "UM rejectionform". 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 GEICO automatically

excluding Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage from the quote and

displaying"N/A" next to that coverage.

g) Defendant GEICO then prefills and unapproved form that has
an illegal eliminated

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

15
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

insured cannot do so because the form is already filled out by Defendant GEICO

and the prefilled ofUninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage cannot be
rejection

changed by the insured.
electronically

55. Based on the sellingprocess utilized by Defendant GEICO described above, Plaintiff

appliedfor and received the GEICO policy from Defendant GEICO without the legally

requiredlevels of insurance coverage.

56. Defendant GEICO does not displaythe form that informs a prospectiveinsured of their

rightto UM coverage before the completionofthe sale,describes the nature ofthe coverage
and the options as mandated by Fla. Stat. § 627.727. Defendant GEICO misleadinglytells

its that this form
insureds,includingPlaintiff, is with the coverages and data
"pre-filled

you have selected and provided." Defendant GEICO further misleadingly states to its

that this form contains "your chosen selections and options,"
insureds,includingPlaintiff,

despite the fact that Defendant GEICO intentionallyfills the form out excluding

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage, and tricks the insureds in further violation of

Fla. Stat. § 627.727.

57. Through this series ofnon-disclosures and misrepresentations,
Defendant GEICO intends

to induce and does induce its insureds, including Plaintiff,to purchase automobile

insurance without the insureds understanding that they are entitled to

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage, and that they are not fully covered in

compliance with Florida law.

16
58. In this manner, Defendant GEICO 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
insureds of the statutorily

coverage to which these insureds,includingPlaintiff,
are entitled.

59. Defendant GEICO intends that the insureds, including Plaintiff,will rely on these

representationsto abandon their efforts to obtain the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist

coverage to which they are legally
entitled.

60. Defendant GEICO employed the procedures identified in the above Paragraphs in order to

gain unfair profitby deprivingPlaintiff of her rightfulcoverage, and Plaintiff has been

injuredby her reliance on Defendant GEICO's false and misleadingnondisclosures and

false representations.

61. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant GEICO's fraudulent misrepresentations,

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

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

medical bills and other uncompensated expenses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff,KEZIA GOMEZ, demands judgment against Defendant,

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE 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 GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, shall issue KEZIA
payment to Plaintiff, GOMEZ, and the undersignedlaw firms for

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

17
order,or decree.

COUNT IV: BAD FAITH CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT GEICO
62. Paragraphs 1-15 are incorporatedby reference as though fullyset forth herein.

63. On several occasions, but most recentlyon January 13, 2022, Defendant GEICO issued a

denial to Plaintiff regarding the GEICO claim on the grounds that no

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage exists. This denial was wrongful as described

in Counts II and III above.

64. At all times material,Defendant GEICO failed to settle the GEICO claim when, under all

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

towards and
its insureds,Plaintiff, with due regardfor her interests.

65. At all times material,Defendant GEICO made material misrepresentations
to its insured,

for the purpose and with the intent of effecting
Plaintiff, settlement ofthe GEICO claim on

less favorable terms than those provided in the GEICO policy.

66. At all times material,Defendant GEICO misrepresentedpertinentfacts or insurance policy

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

frequency as to indicate a generalbusiness practice.

67. On June 9,2022, Plaintiff filed her Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violations listing
the

above-described violations and describingthe facts and circumstances surroundingthose

violations.

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

Complaint.

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

18
claim, Plaintiff has been injured and suffered damages in the form of deprivationof

insurance coverage to which she has a statutory right,as well as being burdened with out

of pocket medical bills and other uncompensated expenses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff,KEZIA GOMEZ, demands judgment against Defendant,

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, for compensatory damages, prejudgment interest

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

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 GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, shall issue KEZIA
payment to Plaintiff, GOMEZ, and the undersigned law firms for

all reasonable attorneys'fees and costs incurred in securingin Plaintiff's favor any judgment,

order, or decree.

Luke T. Moreau, Esq.
/s/

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.
504 Aventura CorporateCenter
20801 Biscayne Boulevard
Aventura, Florida 33180
MIAMI DADE - (305) 935-2500

19
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 80Uth
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

20
- -

xh
C-PIIFI OCOVIPS---
Claim Number: 0632556990000001 Date Of Loss: 3/19/2021

Adjuster: nz22
Policyholder: MS KEZIA GABRIELA
GOMEZ
Policy Number: 4548267204

Policy Term Start Date: 1/5/2021
Company: GEICO General Insurance Company

S. Dudley Date Requested: 04/01/2021
Date Processed: 04/02/2021
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 0632556990000001, Policy Number 4548267204, and issued
to MS KEZIA GABRIELA GOMEZ based upon records in our computer data
in our files and was in effect on the date of loss 03/19/2021.

The policy contract, amendments and endorsements, also electronically
forwarded to Claims, are standard forms with information particularto Policy
Number 4548267204 and issued to MS KEZIA GABRIELA GOMEZ and was
in effect the date of loss 03/19/2021.

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 GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
One GEICO Center
Policy Number: 4548-26-72-04
Macon,

Case Info

Judge

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

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 17, 2024

Case Filing Date

May 17, 2024

County

Parties

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

Complaint,Petition: KEZIA GOMEZ VS JUAN ALONSO ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties