arrow left
arrow right
  • Benjamin Edell, et al Plaintiff vs. Heritage Property And Casualty Ins Comp Defendant Contract and Indebtedness document preview
  • Benjamin Edell, et al Plaintiff vs. Heritage Property And Casualty Ins Comp Defendant Contract and Indebtedness document preview
  • Benjamin Edell, et al Plaintiff vs. Heritage Property And Casualty Ins Comp Defendant Contract and Indebtedness document preview
  • Benjamin Edell, et al Plaintiff vs. Heritage Property And Casualty Ins Comp Defendant Contract and Indebtedness document preview
						
                                

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