Preview
Filing # 74202773 E-Filed 06/27/2018 04:25:39 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
JACQUELINE KOHN, CASE NO.: CACE-18-001121
Plaintiff, DIVISION: 05
Vv.
STATE FARM FLORIDA
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AS TO THE DEFENDANT’S SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule
1.540 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, moves for summary judgment as to the
Defendant’s Second Affirmative Defense and states,
1 The Defendant’s Second Affirmative Defense asserts that
If the Plaintiff waste plumbing system beneath the home leaked
into the home, then this affirmative defense shall apply. Plaintiff
tore out the waste plumbing system beneath her home before
notifying STATE FARM of any loss associated with that part of
the plumbing. The policy requires that Plaintiff give immediate
notice of any loss that may be covered by the policy; and the
policy requires that Plaintiff exhibit the damage to STATEF
FARM upon demand. Plaintiff and/or her representatives claimed
that a condition of the waste plumbing system beneath the home
caused the escape of water that damaged her home, but by failing
to give immediate notice and by failing to allow STATE FARM to
inspect and test the waste plumbing system beneath the home
before it was torn out, STATE FARM was prejudiced in its ability
to correlate a condition of the waste plumbing system beneath the
home with the reported interior water damage. However, STATE
FARM was able to determine that a waste arm (a horizontal
section of the drain system serving the kitchen sink and located
within the wall of the home behind the sink cabinets, which had
not been torn out prior to STATE FARM's inspection) was leaking.
STATE FARM paid to access the waste arm pursuant to the policy.
As a result of Plaintiffs failure to comply with the policy at
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY. FL BRENDA D. FORMAN. CLERK 6/27/2018 4:25:38 PM.****
Section I — Conditions, 2. Your Duties After Loss (Exhibit 1, at
60-61), prejudice resulted to STATE FARM, and there is no
coverage for that part of the claim seeking coverage to tear out the
waste plumbing system beneath the home.
2 The Defendant did not raise the defense of late notice prior to this litigation and
did not assert it as grounds for paying or not paying any portion of this loss previously. See
Plaintiffs Second Request_for Admissions attached hereto as Exhibit A and Defendant’s
Response to Second Request for Admissions attached hereto as Exhibit B.
3 Defendant’s change in position is barred by the “Mend the Hold doctrine, and
Defendant must not be allowed to change the grounds of its defense and present evidence at trial
that the cause or extent of damage at the property is a result of something other than a covered
peril. Ohio & M.R. Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U.S. 258 (1887).
4 By failing to allege the above referenced defense in its denial letter, the Defendant
has waived, or is estopped from relying on, additional policy defenses after suit has been filed
and may not “mend the hold.” See e.g., Berkman v. Foley, 709 So.2d 628 (Fla. 4" DCA 1998);
Salcedo v. Asociacion Cubana, Inc. 368 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Leonardo vy. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 675 So.2d 176 (Fla. 4" DCA 1996); Trans Ocean Container Corp. v.
Yorkshire Ins. Co., Ltd. “C” Account, 81 F.Supp.2d 1340 (S.D. Fla. 1999).
5 The “mend the hold” doctrine was first established by the Supreme Court of the
United States in Ohio & M.R. Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U.S. 258 (1887) which explained,
[w]here a party gives a reason for his conduct and decision
touching any thing involved in a controversy, he cannot, after
litigation has begun, change his grounds, and put his conduct upon
another and a different consideration. He is not permitted thus to
mend his hold. He is stopped from doing it by a settled principle
of law.
6 Judge Richard Posner explained in Harbor Ins. Co. v. Continental Bank Corp, 922
F.2d 357, 362 (7" Cir 1990), that the common law doctrine of “mend the hold” limits the right of
a party to a contract suit to change his litigating position. In doing so, he pointed out that the
doctrine is especially applicable to insurance companies that change their reason for refusing to
pay a claim.
7 The doctrine limits the available defenses to the exact defenses asserted at the
time of breach. Accordingly, one who breaches his contract for reasons specified at the time will
not be permitted afterwards, when sued for damages, to set up other and different defenses. See
Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 267 F. 676 (4th Cir 1920).
8 This well-settled doctrine is recognized by Florida Courts and is applicable in the
State of Florida. See B & G Aventura, LLC v. G-Site Ltd. P'ship, 97 So. 3d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA
2012) (recognizing the adoption of the "mend the hold" doctrine in Florida). All other defenses
that the insurance company knew of at the time it formed its coverage decision that were not
asserted are waived. See also, Salcedo v. Asociacion Cuban, Inc. 368 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA
1979) (citing Ohio & M.R. Co., Supra and stating “[i]n earlier times, the rule we apply in this
case was said to reflect the feeling that a party may not ‘mend his hold’ . . .”); Heimer v.
Travelers Ins. Co., 400 So. 2d 711, 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); American States Ins. Co. v.
McGuire, 510 So.2d 1227 (Fla. Ist DCA 1987).
9 In American States, the court stated “when an insurer specifies the ground upon
which it denies coverage to its insured, and the insured pursues a course of action in reliance on
the insurer's asserted defense, the insurer is estopped to raise a new ground upon which to deny
coverage.” 510 So, 2d at 1229. The court in American States did not allow the defendant to raise
an admittedly meritorious defense, when it initially limited its denial of coverage to lack of
bodily injury within the meaning of the policy and the insureds incurred litigation expenses in
reliance on the perceived invalidity of the defense. /d at 1230.
10. The foremost insurance authority, Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, Vol.
16C, sec. 9260, pp. 393-395 (West Pub. Co., 1981), describes the rule as follows:
When one specific ground of forfeiture is urged against the claim,
and a refusal to pay is based upon a specific ground, all other
grounds are waived. So, when the insurer, with knowledge of all
pertinent facts, denies liability upon a specific ground, it cannot
thereafter shift its position and defend upon another basis known to
it at the time of its repudiation. The insurer may even be charged
with knowledge of other defenses. And all defenses, except those
stated in a notice of rescission by the insurer are deemed waived
and may not be presented in a later suit on the policy. Any defense
which the insurer asserts to the exclusion of others may prevent it
thereafter defending upon other grounds.
11. If the insurer denies liability, all defenses of which it has knowledge at the time of
the denial must be asserted or else they are waived. See 16A Appleman §9260 (1968); Couch2d
§71:43 (1968); 45 C.I.S. Insurance §§706-707 (1946).
12. The “Mend the Hold” doctrine has been found to be especially applicable to
insurance companies that change their reason for denying a claim. See Harbor Ins. Co. v.
Continental Bank Corp., 922 F.2d 357, 363 (7 Cir. 1990). Trans Ocean Container Corp. v.
Yorkshire Ins. Co., Ltd. “C” Account, 81 F. Supp.2d 1340, 1347 (S.D. Fla. 1999).
13. The doctrine is also well published in legal journals. See John A. DeVault, III,
“Mend the Hold” An Antiquated Doctrine of Fairness?, 70 Fla. Bar. J. 8 (Apr. 1996). If a carrier
had sufficient information at the time of its coverage determination to assert certain policy
exclusions, yet did not do so, the carrier may not later assert those exclusions as affirmative
defenses to coverage. See also, Eugene R. Anderson, Jordan S. Stanzler & Lorelie S. Masters,
Insurance Coverage Litigation, Chapter 12, Estoppel and Alternative Causes of Action, Mend-the-
Hold Doctrine, § 12.02[E] (2d ed. 2000).
14. Based upon the well settled case law the Defendant effectively waived its right to
assert its Second Affirmative Defense. This issue presents an issue of law which is properly
before this Court.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff hereby moves for partial summary judgment as to the
Defendant’s Second Affirmative Defense.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing, has been furnished
via Electronic Mail to: Brian Charlton Hunter, Esq., Chimpoulis, Hunter & Lynn, P.A., 150 S.
Pine Island Road, Suite 510, Plantation, FL 33324 on this 27th day of June, 2018.
/s/ Jonathan T. Hall
Jonathan T. Hall, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 762601
Stockham Law Group, P.A.
610 W. Horatio Street
Tampa, Florida 33606
Telephone: (813) 867-4455
Facsimile: (813) 867-4454
Attorney for Plaintiff
jhall@stockhamlawgroup.com
mallen@stockhamlawgroup.com
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
JACQUELINE KOHN, CASE NO.: CACE-18-001121
Plaintiff, DIVISION: 05
Vv.
STATE FARM FLORIDA
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned counsel and, pursuant to
Rule 1.370, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure, hereby demands that Defendant, answer her Second
Request for Admissions, numbered 12 - 16, and admit or deny the following with thirty (30)
days:
12. Admit that the Defendant completed its claim investigation on or before
December 18, 2017.
13. Admit that the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter dated December 18, 2017,
which set forth, in its entirety, the Defendant’s coverage decision with respect to this claim.
14, Admit that the Defendant did not deny any portion of this claim on the grounds
that the Defendant did not provide immediate notice of any of the damages or loss.
15. Admit that the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff, in writing or verbally, that it
was reserving its right to deny any portion of this claim on the basis that the Plaintiff did not give
immediate notice of any of the damages or loss.
16. Admit that a insurance company waives its right to assert defenses based upon policy
conditions that it did not raise as a basis for making its coverage decision.
EXHIBIT A
/s/ Jonathan T. Hall, Esq.
Jonathan T. Hall, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 762601
Stockham Law Group, P.A.
610 West Horatio Street
Tampa, Florida 33606
Telephone: (813) 867-4455
Facsimile: (813) 867-4454
Attorney for Plaintiff
jhall@stockhamlawgroup.com
mallen@stockhamlawgroup.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing, has been furnished
via Electronic Mail to: Brian Charlton Hunter, Esq., Chimpoulis, Hunter & Lynn, P.A., 150 S.
Pine Island Road, Suite 510, Plantation, FL 33324 on this 25" day of May, 2018.
/s/ Jonathan T. Hall
Attorney
Filing # 73368624 E-Filed 06/11/2018 01:55:17 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17™
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO.: CACE 18-001121 (Div. 05)
JACQUELINE KOHN,
Plaintiffs,
VS,
STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
STATE FARM'S RESPONSE TO SECOND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
Defendant, STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, pursuant to Fla. R.
Civ. P. 1.370, hereby responds to Second Request for Admissions filed in this action by Plaintiff
JACQUELINE KOHN as follows:
12 Admitted.
13 Admitted.
14, Admitted that that the requirement to give "immediate notice" was not contained
in the denial letter; denied that the omission operated as a waiver of the provision.
15. Denied.
16. Objection. The request is in the nature of an incomplete hypothetical and it calls
for pure legal conclusion, which is not permitted under Fla. Rule Civ. P. 1.370. Denied that any
waiver occurred in this case.
EXHIBIT B
CASE NO.: CACE 18-001121 (Div. 05)
Response to 2"? Request for Admissions
Page 2
CHIMPOULIS, HUNTER & LYNN, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant STATE FARM
150 S. Pine Island Road
Suite 510
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: (954) 463-0033
s/ Brian Charlton Hunter
BY:
BRIAN CHARLTON HUNTER, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 981206
bhunter@chl-law.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of foregoing was served through
the Florida Courts E-filing Portal on this 11TH day of June, 2018, upon Donna DeVaney
Stockham, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiffs, at the following address(es):
Istockham@:stockhamlawgroup.com
meassida@stockhamlawgroup.com
agonzalez-abreu@stockhamlawgroup.com
CHIMPOULIS, HUNTER & LYNN, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant STATE FARM
150 S. Pine Island Road
Suite 510
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: (954) 463-0033
s/ Brian Charlton Hunter
BY:
BRIAN CHARLTON HUNTER, ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 981206
bhunter@chl-law.com
Preview
Filing # 74202773 E-Filed 06/27/2018 04:25:39 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION JACQUELINE KOHN, CASE NO.: CACE-18-001121 Plaintiff, DIVISION: 05 Vv. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. / PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE DEFENDANT’S SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 1.540 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, moves for summary judgment as to the Defendant’s Second Affirmative Defense and states, 1 The Defendant’s Second Affirmative Defense asserts that If the Plaintiff waste plumbing system beneath the home leaked into the home, then this affirmative defense shall apply. Plaintiff tore out the waste plumbing system beneath her home before notifying STATE FARM of any loss associated with that part of the plumbing. The policy requires that Plaintiff give immediate notice of any loss that may be covered by the policy; and the policy requires that Plaintiff exhibit the damage to STATEF FARM upon demand. Plaintiff and/or her representatives claimed that a condition of the waste plumbing system beneath the home caused the escape of water that damaged her home, but by failing to give immediate notice and by failing to allow STATE FARM to inspect and test the waste plumbing system beneath the home before it was torn out, STATE FARM was prejudiced in its ability to correlate a condition of the waste plumbing system beneath the home with the reported interior water damage. However, STATE FARM was able to determine that a waste arm (a horizontal section of the drain system serving the kitchen sink and located within the wall of the home behind the sink cabinets, which had not been torn out prior to STATE FARM's inspection) was leaking. STATE FARM paid to access the waste arm pursuant to the policy. As a result of Plaintiffs failure to comply with the policy at *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY. FL BRENDA D. FORMAN. CLERK 6/27/2018 4:25:38 PM.**** Section I — Conditions, 2. Your Duties After Loss (Exhibit 1, at 60-61), prejudice resulted to STATE FARM, and there is no coverage for that part of the claim seeking coverage to tear out the waste plumbing system beneath the home. 2 The Defendant did not raise the defense of late notice prior to this litigation and did not assert it as grounds for paying or not paying any portion of this loss previously. See Plaintiffs Second Request_for Admissions attached hereto as Exhibit A and Defendant’s Response to Second Request for Admissions attached hereto as Exhibit B. 3 Defendant’s change in position is barred by the “Mend the Hold doctrine, and Defendant must not be allowed to change the grounds of its defense and present evidence at trial that the cause or extent of damage at the property is a result of something other than a covered peril. Ohio & M.R. Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U.S. 258 (1887). 4 By failing to allege the above referenced defense in its denial letter, the Defendant has waived, or is estopped from relying on, additional policy defenses after suit has been filed and may not “mend the hold.” See e.g., Berkman v. Foley, 709 So.2d 628 (Fla. 4" DCA 1998); Salcedo v. Asociacion Cubana, Inc. 368 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Leonardo vy. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 675 So.2d 176 (Fla. 4" DCA 1996); Trans Ocean Container Corp. v. Yorkshire Ins. Co., Ltd. “C” Account, 81 F.Supp.2d 1340 (S.D. Fla. 1999). 5 The “mend the hold” doctrine was first established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Ohio & M.R. Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U.S. 258 (1887) which explained, [w]here a party gives a reason for his conduct and decision touching any thing involved in a controversy, he cannot, after litigation has begun, change his grounds, and put his conduct upon another and a different consideration. He is not permitted thus to mend his hold. He is stopped from doing it by a settled principle of law. 6 Judge Richard Posner explained in Harbor Ins. Co. v. Continental Bank Corp, 922 F.2d 357, 362 (7" Cir 1990), that the common law doctrine of “mend the hold” limits the right of a party to a contract suit to change his litigating position. In doing so, he pointed out that the doctrine is especially applicable to insurance companies that change their reason for refusing to pay a claim. 7 The doctrine limits the available defenses to the exact defenses asserted at the time of breach. Accordingly, one who breaches his contract for reasons specified at the time will not be permitted afterwards, when sued for damages, to set up other and different defenses. See Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 267 F. 676 (4th Cir 1920). 8 This well-settled doctrine is recognized by Florida Courts and is applicable in the State of Florida. See B & G Aventura, LLC v. G-Site Ltd. P'ship, 97 So. 3d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (recognizing the adoption of the "mend the hold" doctrine in Florida). All other defenses that the insurance company knew of at the time it formed its coverage decision that were not asserted are waived. See also, Salcedo v. Asociacion Cuban, Inc. 368 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (citing Ohio & M.R. Co., Supra and stating “[i]n earlier times, the rule we apply in this case was said to reflect the feeling that a party may not ‘mend his hold’ . . .”); Heimer v. Travelers Ins. Co., 400 So. 2d 711, 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); American States Ins. Co. v. McGuire, 510 So.2d 1227 (Fla. Ist DCA 1987). 9 In American States, the court stated “when an insurer specifies the ground upon which it denies coverage to its insured, and the insured pursues a course of action in reliance on the insurer's asserted defense, the insurer is estopped to raise a new ground upon which to deny coverage.” 510 So, 2d at 1229. The court in American States did not allow the defendant to raise an admittedly meritorious defense, when it initially limited its denial of coverage to lack of bodily injury within the meaning of the policy and the insureds incurred litigation expenses in reliance on the perceived invalidity of the defense. /d at 1230. 10. The foremost insurance authority, Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, Vol. 16C, sec. 9260, pp. 393-395 (West Pub. Co., 1981), describes the rule as follows: When one specific ground of forfeiture is urged against the claim, and a refusal to pay is based upon a specific ground, all other grounds are waived. So, when the insurer, with knowledge of all pertinent facts, denies liability upon a specific ground, it cannot thereafter shift its position and defend upon another basis known to it at the time of its repudiation. The insurer may even be charged with knowledge of other defenses. And all defenses, except those stated in a notice of rescission by the insurer are deemed waived and may not be presented in a later suit on the policy. Any defense which the insurer asserts to the exclusion of others may prevent it thereafter defending upon other grounds. 11. If the insurer denies liability, all defenses of which it has knowledge at the time of the denial must be asserted or else they are waived. See 16A Appleman §9260 (1968); Couch2d §71:43 (1968); 45 C.I.S. Insurance §§706-707 (1946). 12. The “Mend the Hold” doctrine has been found to be especially applicable to insurance companies that change their reason for denying a claim. See Harbor Ins. Co. v. Continental Bank Corp., 922 F.2d 357, 363 (7 Cir. 1990). Trans Ocean Container Corp. v. Yorkshire Ins. Co., Ltd. “C” Account, 81 F. Supp.2d 1340, 1347 (S.D. Fla. 1999). 13. The doctrine is also well published in legal journals. See John A. DeVault, III, “Mend the Hold” An Antiquated Doctrine of Fairness?, 70 Fla. Bar. J. 8 (Apr. 1996). If a carrier had sufficient information at the time of its coverage determination to assert certain policy exclusions, yet did not do so, the carrier may not later assert those exclusions as affirmative defenses to coverage. See also, Eugene R. Anderson, Jordan S. Stanzler & Lorelie S. Masters, Insurance Coverage Litigation, Chapter 12, Estoppel and Alternative Causes of Action, Mend-the- Hold Doctrine, § 12.02[E] (2d ed. 2000). 14. Based upon the well settled case law the Defendant effectively waived its right to assert its Second Affirmative Defense. This issue presents an issue of law which is properly before this Court. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff hereby moves for partial summary judgment as to the Defendant’s Second Affirmative Defense. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing, has been furnished via Electronic Mail to: Brian Charlton Hunter, Esq., Chimpoulis, Hunter & Lynn, P.A., 150 S. Pine Island Road, Suite 510, Plantation, FL 33324 on this 27th day of June, 2018. /s/ Jonathan T. Hall Jonathan T. Hall, Esquire Florida Bar No. 762601 Stockham Law Group, P.A. 610 W. Horatio Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Telephone: (813) 867-4455 Facsimile: (813) 867-4454 Attorney for Plaintiff jhall@stockhamlawgroup.com mallen@stockhamlawgroup.com IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION JACQUELINE KOHN, CASE NO.: CACE-18-001121 Plaintiff, DIVISION: 05 Vv. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. / PLAINTIFF’S SECOND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned counsel and, pursuant to Rule 1.370, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure, hereby demands that Defendant, answer her Second Request for Admissions, numbered 12 - 16, and admit or deny the following with thirty (30) days: 12. Admit that the Defendant completed its claim investigation on or before December 18, 2017. 13. Admit that the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter dated December 18, 2017, which set forth, in its entirety, the Defendant’s coverage decision with respect to this claim. 14, Admit that the Defendant did not deny any portion of this claim on the grounds that the Defendant did not provide immediate notice of any of the damages or loss. 15. Admit that the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff, in writing or verbally, that it was reserving its right to deny any portion of this claim on the basis that the Plaintiff did not give immediate notice of any of the damages or loss. 16. Admit that a insurance company waives its right to assert defenses based upon policy conditions that it did not raise as a basis for making its coverage decision. EXHIBIT A /s/ Jonathan T. Hall, Esq. Jonathan T. Hall, Esq. Florida Bar No. 762601 Stockham Law Group, P.A. 610 West Horatio Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Telephone: (813) 867-4455 Facsimile: (813) 867-4454 Attorney for Plaintiff jhall@stockhamlawgroup.com mallen@stockhamlawgroup.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing, has been furnished via Electronic Mail to: Brian Charlton Hunter, Esq., Chimpoulis, Hunter & Lynn, P.A., 150 S. Pine Island Road, Suite 510, Plantation, FL 33324 on this 25" day of May, 2018. /s/ Jonathan T. Hall Attorney Filing # 73368624 E-Filed 06/11/2018 01:55:17 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO.: CACE 18-001121 (Div. 05) JACQUELINE KOHN, Plaintiffs, VS, STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. STATE FARM'S RESPONSE TO SECOND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS Defendant, STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.370, hereby responds to Second Request for Admissions filed in this action by Plaintiff JACQUELINE KOHN as follows: 12 Admitted. 13 Admitted. 14, Admitted that that the requirement to give "immediate notice" was not contained in the denial letter; denied that the omission operated as a waiver of the provision. 15. Denied. 16. Objection. The request is in the nature of an incomplete hypothetical and it calls for pure legal conclusion, which is not permitted under Fla. Rule Civ. P. 1.370. Denied that any waiver occurred in this case. EXHIBIT B CASE NO.: CACE 18-001121 (Div. 05) Response to 2"? Request for Admissions Page 2 CHIMPOULIS, HUNTER & LYNN, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant STATE FARM 150 S. Pine Island Road Suite 510 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 463-0033 s/ Brian Charlton Hunter BY: BRIAN CHARLTON HUNTER, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 981206 bhunter@chl-law.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of foregoing was served through the Florida Courts E-filing Portal on this 11TH day of June, 2018, upon Donna DeVaney Stockham, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiffs, at the following address(es): Istockham@:stockhamlawgroup.com meassida@stockhamlawgroup.com agonzalez-abreu@stockhamlawgroup.com CHIMPOULIS, HUNTER & LYNN, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant STATE FARM 150 S. Pine Island Road Suite 510 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 463-0033 s/ Brian Charlton Hunter BY: BRIAN CHARLTON HUNTER, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 981206 bhunter@chl-law.com