On July 30, 2015 a
Answer
was filed
involving a dispute between
Edell, Benjamin,
Edell, Rebecca,
and
Heritage Property And Casualty Ins Comp,
for Contract and Indebtedness
in the District Court of Broward County.
Preview
Filing # 32052975 E-Filed 09/15/2015 11:54:37 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD
COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No. CACE 15-013539 21
BENJAMIN EDELL AND-REBECCA
EDELL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
/
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
COMES NOW the Defendant, HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through undersigned counsel and files its Answer and
Affirmative Defenses to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint as follows:
1. The Defendant admits only that this action purports to be one for damages.
The remainder of the allegations are denied.
2. The allegations contained in paragraph 2 are unknown to this Defendant and
therefore denied.
3. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 3 as phrased.
4. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4.
5 The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 5.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
6. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6 as phrased.
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 9/15/2015 11:54:37 AM.****is As to paragraph 7, it is unknown as to whether the insured has a copy of the
policy. It is admitted that the insurance company has a copy of said policy.
8. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 as phrased.
9. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9.
10. As to paragraph 10, it is admitted that Defendant assigned claim number
HP114222 to the loss. The remainder of the allegations are denied.
11. | The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11.
12. The Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 12.
13. As to paragraph 13, itis admitted that Defendant denied the claim. The
remainder of the allegations are denied.
14. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14.
15. | The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 15.
16. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 16.
COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT
17. Defendant realleges and reavers its responses to paragraphs one through
416 as if fully set forth herein.
18. | The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 as
phrased.
19. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19.
20. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 20.
21. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 21.
22. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 22.
23. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 23.AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
4. As and for its first affirmative defense, Defendant would state that Plaintiffs
have failed to mitigate their damages as required under Florida law and any such recovery
should be proportionately reduced as a result of the failure heretofore alleged.
2. As and for its second affirmative defense, Defendant would state that
Plaintiffs’ alleged damages are barred in whole or in part based upon the policy exclusion
concerning neglect.
3. As and for its third affirmative defense, Defendant would state that Plaintiffs’
alleged damages are barred in whole or in part based upon the policy exclusion
concerning the lack of a hole or opening.
4. As and for its fourth affirmative defense, Defendant would state that
Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part based upon the policy exclusion
concerning lack of a sudden and accidental loss.
5. As and for its fifth affirmative defense, Defendant would state that Plaintiffs’
claims are barred in whole or in part due to the express policy exclusion concerning wear
and tear, and deterioration.
6. As and for its sixth affirmative defense, Defendant would state that Plaintiffs’
alleged damages are barred in whole or in part based upon the policy exclusion
conceming faulty, inadequate or defective maintenance.
7. As and for its seventh affirmative defense, Defendant would state that
Plaintiffs’ alleged damages are barred in whole or in part based upon the policy exclusion
concerning faulty, inadequate or defective constructions or repair.8. As and for its eighth affirmative defense, Defendant would state that
Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part due to the failure by Plaintiffs to adhere to
the Duties After Loss section of the subject policy of insurance by failing to timely report
the toss, protect the property from further damage and/or allow Heritage to inspect the
allegedly damaged property.
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished
by e-mail to David Low, Esquire, eservice@davidlowpa.com David Low & Associates,
P.A., 20195 Northeast 16 Place, Second Place, Miami, FL 33179, 305/935-8986, this 15”
By /s/ Glenn H. Malin.
GLENN H. MALIN
Florida Bar #974595
PETERSON BERNARD
Attomeys for Defendant
707 S.E. 3° Avenue, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
(954) 763-3200
(954) 728-9019 facsimile
jquarente@ftijaw.com
day of September, 2015.
GHM:
2876.91250
Document Filed Date
September 15, 2015
Case Filing Date
July 30, 2015
Category
Contract and Indebtedness
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.