Preview
Case Number: CACE-15-022300 Division: 21
Filing # 35715976 E-Filed 12/18/2015 12:37:53 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL CIRCUIT DIVISION
CASE NO.
LUZ DEL CARMEN FLORES,
Plaintiff,
SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, LUZ DEL CARMEN FLORES (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”) and sues
SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY (“DEFENDANT”) and says:
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS AND INCORPORATED THEREIN
1 This is an action for damages in excess of this court’s minimum jurisdictional limits
and for Attorneys’ fees and costs, and/or for declaratory and other relief.
2 PLAINTIFF is an individual, sui juris, presently residing in Broward County, Florida.
3 Defendant, SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY, (hereafter “Defendant”) is a
Florida corporation engaged in the sale and provision of homeowners insurance. It actively does
business in Broward County, Florida.
4 The causes of action sued upon accrued in Broward County, Florida as these causes of
action involve a purported property insurance contract that involves the parties with respect to a
piece of real property located in said county.
5 All conditions precedent to suit have been complied with, substantially complied with or
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 12/18/2015 12:37:59 PM.****waived. Defendant has not suffered any prejudice.
6 By virtue of the conduct of the Defendant as hereinafter alleged, Plaintiff has been
required to retain the services of the undersigned Counsel to represent the insured in this action
and is obligated to pay a reasonable fee for such services and is therefore entitled to recover such
fees from Defendant pursuant to Florida law.
7 The declarations page of Exhibit A expressly represents the existence and sale of
insurance coverage/protection as do all the marketing programs of the defendant and even the
defendant’s name: "SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY".
8 Defendant had the specific intent that Plaintiff, and others in like position, would repose
their confidence in the defendant as it relates to purchasing insurance coverage and protection
for the purposes which were communicated to the defendant at or shortly before the time of sale
of Exhibit A to Plaintiff.
9 Plaintiff suffered a loss to its property on or about June 10, 2015 for damages to the
risk property listed on the declarations of coverages page caused by heavy winds caused damage
to the roof creating opening through which water entered the risk premises in such a fashion as
to cause substantial damage to the risk property, the costs to replace or repair the casualty loss
being approximately $20,000, and pursuant to the rules set forth in the insurance policy writing
attached as Exhibit A, timely reported it to Defendant.
10 Defendant assigned claim number 20157631 to the sudden and unexpected June 10,
2015 loss.
11 Tf there is a contract, Plaintiff's property suffered covered losses [or was damaged if
there is no contract] in the gross amount of approximately $20,000 during the policy period,
which Defendant either partially or totally refuses to pay.ACTION TO REFORM AN EGR CONERIET TO CONFORM WTH A JURY'S
DETERMINATION OF THE PARTIES! INTENT IF PROVEN TO BE DIFFERENT
FROM THE PLAIN WORDING OF THE POLICY AND UPON SUCH
DETERMINATION, ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DETERMINING
WHETHER THE "WEAR AND TEAR, MARRING, DETERIORATION" EXCEPTION
RENDERS THE POLICY ILLUSORY OR WHETHER THE PROVISION IS VOID
12 Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the above allegations as though restated fully herein.
13 Plaintiff seeks a jury determination of the parties' intent on the reach of the "wear and
tear, marring, deterioration" exception to coverage, and subsequently, an order from the court
reforming the contract to conform the reach of the exception pursuant to the jury’s determination
of the parties! intent. Thereupon a declaration is requested from the court as to whether the
attached Exhibit A [as reformed by the court in conformity with the jury’s determination of the
parties’ intent] is an enforceable contract, or a non-enforceable illusion. Essentially, first a jury
determination of the parties’ intent on the reach of the "wear and tear, marring, deterioration"
exception to coverage, then a court ordered reformation of the contract and then a declaration as
to whether the policy is illusory.
14 The policy (Exhibit A) Numbered SPIH0256678-02, with policy term from December
28, 2014 to December 28, 2015 was issued by Defendant on the date indicated therein.
15 Before the loss, Plaintiff thought it had purchased and was led to believe that there
existed a contract with Defendant which would provide property insurance coverage to the
Plaintiff's property per the declarations page which is part of Exhibit A.
16 The declarations page reads that various 'coverages' existed over the property located at
521 SW 70th Terrace, Pembroke Pines, FL 33023, in Broward County, Florida, per said Exhibit
A.17 The parties intended that Exhibit A be an enforceable insurance contract but there is a
provision in the contract which is inconsistent with the embodiment of the purpose of the
contract as alleged herein.
18 On one hand, per Exhibit A, Defendant states in the declarations page that Plaintiff's
property was insured with various coverages.
19 On the other hand per Exhibit A, the “wear and tear, marring, deterioration” policy
exception eviscerates any of the coverages represented in the declaration page for any loss
involving damage.
20 This contradiction in coverage is patently irreconcilable with the purpose of the insurance
contract and the parties’ agreement to have an enforceable contract.
21 " Marring", " wear and tear" and "deterioration" are terms meaning 'damage' of intended
use or obsolescence, with no limitation as to amount. [Plaintiff's demand for the court to take
judicial notice].
22 Thus, the 'wear and tear, marring, and deterioration’ policy exception patently conflicts
with the intent of the parties to enter into an enforceable insurance contract shown by the
declarations page because the exception eviscerates all coverages for any loss involving damage.
23 Plaintiff submits that the parties intended that the exception apply only to intentional or
non-accidental losses and suggests that this is the only reasonable interpretation.
24 Defendant claims that the exception must be taken literally.
25 If the provision is determined to be too vague by a jury, the provision can be excised as
unconscionable .
26 Given the unambiguous policy exception and definition of 'marring' - literally meaning
any type of damage - and the fact that all losses involve 'wear and tear' and ‘deterioration’,defendant has no obligation to pay any loss involving any damage despite the parties’ intentions
to enter into an enforceable insurance contract as shown by the declarations of coverages page.
27 The policy - when taken literally as written - is illusory because of a lack of mutuality of
obligation! on the part of the insurance company.
28 The exception, due to the literal and qualitative meaning of the terms ‘wear and tear’,
‘matring' and ‘deterioration’ which contain no limitation within the policy, exist in all claims and
is void as unconscionable.
29 The intent of the parties to enter into an enforceable insurance contract is a question of
fact for the jury, because neither party can unilaterally waive the provision under law, F.S.
§627.419(1). Asa result, the policy needs to be reformed in conformity with a jury
determination of the parties’ intent on the reach of the exception, or whether the provision is
void, regardless of whether the offensive exception is the product of the parties' mutual mistake,
or unilateral mistake on the part of one party and inequitable conduct by the other.
30 This action is authorized and jurisdiction exists in this court under F.S. § 86.011, Fla.
Stat. (1990), and pursuant to Article 5, Sec., 5, Fla. Constitution.
31 The ambiguity as to coverage is patent, arising from a contradiction between the
unambiguous exception language contained in the policy agreement, and the parties intent to
enter into an insurance contract as represented by the declarations of coverages page.
32 There is a bona fide, actual, present and practical need for a declaration as Plaintiff is
unsure as to whether an enforceable insurance policy exists between the parties due to the patent
' Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So.2d 4, 5 (Fla.1984): “It is
basic hornbook law that a contract which is not mutually enforceable is an illusory contract. * * *
[Cites omitted] * * * . Where one party retains to itself the option of fulfilling or declining to
fulfill its obligations under the contract, there is no valid contract and neither side may be
bound.”conflict between the all encompassing policy exception which eviscerates coverage on one hand
which is inconsistent with the coverages advertised on the declarations page.
33 Plaintiff's request for this declaration deals with a present, ascertainable state of facts in
this present controversy as the policy is inconsistent with the parties’ obvious intent to have an
enforceable contract, but which intent does not exist when the entire policy must be read as a
whole and given its plain meaning, F.S. § 627.419(1). Thus, the policy must be therefore
reformed to accurately reflect the parties' agreement unless there was no agreement at all.
34 Plaintiff's rights to any benefit under this contract is dependent upon the factual
determination of the parties’ intent as ascertained by a jury, and a subsequent order from the
court reforming the policy in conformity with the jury determination of the parties’ intent, and
then a court determination of whether the policy is illusory.
35 If the jury determines that the parties intended the exception to apply to all losses, the
court must declare the policy illusory - there is no mutuality of obligation.
36 If the jury determines that the parties intended the exception to apply only to non-
accidental losses or that it is unenforceable due to overbreath or unconsciousability, the court
must reform the contract to correct the defect in the written instrument to reflect such finding.
37 The parties have adverse interests. There is no ability for Plaintiff to validly pursue any
breach of contract claim unless the contract is reformed, because there is no enforceable contract
in the face of the exception.
38 Plaintiff must be permitted to pursue the alternate remedies in tort for being tricked.
39 The issue of whether there is a contract upon reformation, or whether the contract is an
unenforceable illusion represents an actual, present, adverse and antagonist interest in the subject
matter, in both fact and law.40 The proper parties are all before the court by proper process or class representation and
the relief sought is not merely the giving of legal advice by the courts or the answer to questions
propounded from curiosity. The parties have a stake in the outcome of the decision.
41 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
41.01 that a jury determine whether the parties intended the above wear and tear, marring, and
deterioration exception to apply only to non-accidental losses, or that it is void for overbreath and
unconscionability, or whether the above exception applies to all losses; and
41.01.01 Upon a jury determination that the above exception was intended by the
parties to include all losses, that the court declare the contract illusory and unenforceable,
thereafter permitting trial on Plaintiff's alternative non-contract claims; or
41.01.02 upon a jury determination that the exception is void for overbreath or
unconscionability or other reason, that the contract be reformed excising such provision.
41.01.03 Upon a jury determination on the reach of the exception, that the court
declare the policy reformed in conformity with the jury's determination of the parties’ intent of
that exception's reach and permit trial on Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract if there is a
contract, and on the torts if not; and
41.02 That Plaintiff be awarded its attorney’s fees and costs for seeking this declaration of
rights.
COUNT 2
COMMON LAW NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, Alternatively: in the event that
there is no contract
42 Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations common to all counts above as though
restated fully herein.
43 Plaintiff was led to believe that the insured had entered into a contract with Defendantwhich would provide property insurance coverage to the Plaintiff's property at 521 SW 70th
Terrace, Pembroke Pines, FL 33023, in Broward County, Florida, Policy Number
SPTH0256678-02 for the term December 28, 2014 to December 28, 2015 (Exhibit A).
44 While the “Declarations” page represents that the policy provides various ‘all risk'
coverages in various amounts, and while the body of the policy also represents that the policy
provides coverages, the “wear and tear, marring, deterioration” exception from coverage
eviscerates any damage coverage for any loss.
45 The " wear and tear, marring, deterioration" exception to coverage contained in the
insurance policy causes the policy to be illusory and unenforceable.
46 Defendant's sale of the policy was the product of a misrepresentation of material fact;
Defendant stated that it would provide a policy of insurance that would cover all damage claims
unless specifically excluded which turns out to be false.
47 Defendant's statement that it was providing coverage over Plaintiff's property was
material.
48 As a product of the misrepresentation Defendant was able to gain Plaintiff's confidence
to sell a policy to Plaintiff that does not cover any loss involving damage.
49 Defendant either knew of the misrepresentation, or made the misrepresentation without
knowledge of its truth or falsity or should have known the representation was false.
50 Defendant intended Plaintiff to rely on Defendant's misrepresentation, so that Plaintiff
would buy the worthless and illusory policy.
51 Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendant's misrepresentation regarding insurance coverage,
in that Plaintiff purchased the illusory policy from Defendant that is attached to this complaint.
52 Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amounts as stated above or to be proven at trial.53 Plaintiff has also suffered loss of use damages, interest costs on Plaintiff's mortgage,
default on Plaintiff's mortgage insurance clause that causes its mortgage debt to be accelerated as
well as other consequential and foreseeable damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages, consequential damages, loss of
use, interest, attorney’s fees and costs and such other amounts as the court may deem meet and
proper after jury deliberations.
COUNT 3
COMMON LAW FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT ALTERNATIVELY: in the event that
there is no contract
54 Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations common to all counts above as though
restated fully herein.
55 Plaintiff was led to believe that the insured had entered into a contract with Defendant
which would provide property insurance coverage to the Plaintiff's property at 521 SW 70th
Terrace, Pembroke Pines, FL 33023, in Broward County, Florida, Policy Number
SPIH0256678-02 for the term December 28, 2014 to December 28, 2015 (Exhibit A).
56 While the “Declarations” page represents that the policy provides various ‘all risk'
coverages in various amounts, and while the body of the policy also represents that the policy
provides coverages, the “wear and tear, marring, deterioration” exception from coverage
eviscerates any damage coverage for any loss.
57 The " wear and tear, marring, deterioration" exception to coverage contained in the
insurance policy causes the policy to be illusory and unenforceable.
58 Defendant's sale of the policy was the product of a misrepresentation of material fact;
Defendant stated that it would provide a policy of insurance that would cover all damage claims
unless specifically excluded at the time of sale, and followed the misrepresentation with amailing of the policy to Plaintiff through the US mail.
59 Defendant's statement that it was providing coverage over Plaintiff's property was
material.
60 As a product of the misrepresentation Defendant was able to gain Plaintiff's confidence
to sell a policy to Plaintiff that does not cover any loss involving damage.
61 Plaintiff was induced to purchase a worthless insurance policy because the insured
justifiably relied on Defendant's misrepresentation regarding coverage, in that Plaintiff purchased
the Policy that is attached to this complaint thinking that said Policy would provide coverage for
sudden, accidental, and fortuitous losses to Plaintiff's property, when in fact, the policy
specifically excepts from coverage any loss involving damage, regardless if fortuitous.
62 Plaintiff has suffered damages for fraud in the inducement in the amounts stated above in
the contract counts in that Plaintiff has suffered property damage to its property, only to now find
that there was no enforceable policy of insurance between the parties.
63 Plaintiff has also suffered loss of use damages, interest costs on Plaintiff's mortgage as
well as other consequential and foreseeable damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages, consequential damages, loss of.
use, interest, costs and such other amounts as the court may deem meet and proper after jury
deliberations.
COUNT 4
COMMON LAW FRAUD ALTERNATIVELY: in the event that there is no contract
64 Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations common to all counts above as though
restated fully herein.
65 Plaintiff was led to believe by Defendant's statements and actions that the insured hadentered into a contract with Defendant which would provide property insurance coverage to the
Plaintiff's property at 521 SW 70th Terrace, Pembroke Pines, FL 33023, in Broward County,
Florida, Policy Number SPTH0256678-02 for the term December 28, 2014 to December 28,
2015 (Exhibit A).
66 Defendant's representations that coverage for fortuitous losses existed under the policy
was wilfully made and was false and was known to be false when it was made because
Defendant is the author of the exception language or at least controlled its inclusion into the
policy, Defendant’s agents made the representations of coverage to Plaintiff at the time of sale,
and defendant repeated the statement by mailing a copy of the declarations page with the policy
to Plaintiff through the US mail.
67 The misrepresentation was wilfully made on the date that the declarations page was
processed and delivered to Plaintiff, as well as on the date any application information was
processed by Defendant's sales agents. These dates are particularly known to defendant who
keeps track of such matters.
68 While the “Declarations” page represents that the policy provides various ‘all risk'
coverages in various amounts, and while the body of the policy also represents that the policy
provides various coverages, the “wear and tear, marring, deterioration” exception from coverage
eviscerates any coverage for damages related to any loss.
69 The " wear and tear, marring, deterioration" exception to coverage contained in the
insurance policy causes the policy to be illusory and unenforceable.
70 Defendant's statement that it was providing coverage over Plaintiff's property was
material and wilful.
71 Defendant intended that Plaintiff rely on Defendant's representation, so that Defendantcould sell the insured a worthless policy.
72 Plaintiff relied on Defendant's misrepresentation regarding coverage.
B Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amounts proven at trial in addition to property losses
alleged herein.
74 Plaintiff has also suffered loss of use damages, interest costs on Plaintiff's mortgage as
well as other consequential and foreseeable damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages, consequential damages, loss of
use, interest, costs and such other amounts as the court may deem meet and proper after jury
deliberations.
COUNT 5 - CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD
75 Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations common to all counts above as though
restated fully herein.
76 Defendant wilfully made a statement that it would provide a policy of insurance that
would cover all damage claims unless specifically excluded at the time of sale of the policy, and
on the date of processing of the declarations page, and on the date of mailing the declaration page
and the policy to the Plaintiff through the US mail.
77 However, the purported policy of insurance contains another statement within it that
excepts from coverage ALL claims that involved “wear and tear, marring or deterioration.”
"Wear and tear", "marring" and "deterioration" all mean damage. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the
time, Defendant sold a policy to Plaintiff that does not cover any claim involving damage.
78 The statements were made on the processing dates of the declaration of coverage pages,
the dates upon which the application for insurance was taken and on the delivery dates of the
policy in question.79 In addition to the verbal misrepresentations of coverage attendant to the application for
and the sale of the insurance policy to Plaintiff, the statements were also made on the face of the
documents at the corporate offices of Defendant, and communicated to Plaintiff by delivery
through the mail.
80 Defendant offered to insure Plaintiff's property in a matter calculated to repose confidence
and trust in Defendant, through Defendant's brochures of protections afforded, verbal assurances,
television advertising, as well as trade advertising on the importance of insurance, that the
insurance was sufficient for Plaintiff's needs incorporated into its effective sales ‘pitch’,
culminating in a Declaration of Coverages pages which, for all intents and purposes, represents
that upon payment, Plaintiff will be covered on an all risk policy for sudden and accidental losses
not specifically excluded.
81 As a result of such offers and sales techniques, Defendant established a relationship of
trust and confidence from Plaintiff to the Defendant that Plaintiff would be protected fully in the
event of a fortuitous loss [sudden and accidental loss not specifically excluded].
82 Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, there was included an exception to any damage for
any loss provision hidden deep within the policy.
83 As a result, Defendant has taken unconsciousable advantage of Plaintiff's confidence and
trust which Plaintiff reposed in Defendant, to Plaintiff's prejudice.
84 Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the broken trust and confidence established
by Defendant's actions in the amounts proven at trial.
85 Plaintiff has also suffered loss of use damages, interest costs on Plaintiff's mortgage,
breach of Plaintiff's Mortgage security agreement as to the insurance clause and possible
accelleration of the mortgage loan debt, a possible loss of Plaintiff's home as well as otherconsequential and foreseeable damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages, consequential damages, loss of
use, interest, costs and such other amounts as the court may deem meet and proper after jury
deliberations.
COUNT 6
Common Law Estoppel Alternatively: in the event that there is no contract
86 Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations common to all counts above as though
restated fully herein.
87 Defendant made a statement that it would provide a policy of insurance that would cover
all damage claims unless specifically excluded.
88 However, the purported policy of insurance contains another statement within it that
excepts from coverage ALL claims that involved “wear and tear, marring or deterioration.”
89 "Wear and tear", "marring" and "deterioration" all mean damage.
90 Plaintiff relied upon Defendant's statements that it was providing insurance for fortuitous
losses, unknowing that Defendant sold had actually sold a policy to Plaintiff that does not cover
any loss involving damage.
91 Defendant's statements that enforceable insurance coverage existed are contrary to the
exception provision in the policy that excepts from coverage any loss involving damage. The
policy of insurance is illusory.
92 Thus, the representation of enforceable coverage at the time of purchase is contrary to the
condition of affairs that actually exist on buried deep within the exceptions to coverage in the
policy due to the exception for wear and tear, marring and deterioration; Plaintiff relied upon the
representation of an enforceable insurance contract made by Defendant.93 As a result of such reliance Plaintiff changed its position from one who was seeking a
policy of insurance protection on its home and for the benefit of its mortgage that provides for
enforceable coverage, to one who had stopped seeking enforceable coverage for fortuitous losses
for its home and mortgagee due to the reasonable belief that such coverage had been obtained.
94 Relying upon such belief, Plaintiff made a claim for a fortuitous loss, only to find that
under the exceptions to its policy language, which, of course, includes the obnoxious ‘wear &
tear, marring and deterioration’ exception, no coverage exists.
95 Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amounts to be proven at trial as a direct consequence
of relying upon Defendant's statements.
96 Plaintiff has also suffered loss of use damages, interest costs on Plaintiff's mortgage as
well as other consequential and foreseeable damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages, consequential damages, loss of
use, interest, costs and such other amounts as the court may deem meet and proper after jury
deliberations.
COUNT 7
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATION THAT THE
LOSS PAYMENT CONDITION CONTAINING THE DUTY TO ADJUST IS A
CONDITION PRECEDENT TO ANY OTHER DUTY UNDER ANY OTHER
CONDITION IN THE CONTRACT
97 Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations common to all counts above as though
restated fully herein.
98 Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this court that the duty to adjust a loss, which is
contained in the loss payment condition of the policy, is a condition precedent to the payment of
any sums under the loss settlement condition or any other duty or claim of performance byDefendant under this insurance contract, and that as a condition precedent, Defendant must
allege and prove satisfaction of all conditions precedent before affirmatively asserting
satisfaction by performance with the loss settlement condition or any other of the conditions in
the contract.
99 Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract which provided insurance over the
Plaintiff's property at 521 SW 70th Terrace, Pembroke Pines, FL 33023, in Broward County,
Florida, Policy Number(s) SPIH0256678-02. Plaintiff has attached a copy of the policy to
show coverages for the term from December 28, 2014 to December 28, 2015. Defendant agreed
to provide such coverages - on the date or dates of processing indicated on the Declaration of
Coverages page. (Exhibit A).
100 Defendant determined an arbitrary value of $2,755.14 for the loss and paid that amount
claiming it as Plaintiff's total loss.
101 Concerned, Plaintiff's hired their own experts to check Defendant's loss estimate.
102 Plaintiff's experts valued the loss pursuant to law in the amount of $20,000.
103 Ignoring the remarkable difference in the values arrived at by Plaintiff's estimators,
Defendant claims full compliance with the loss settlement condition of the contract, ignoring its
duty imposed by the loss payment condition in the contract, and by law [F.S. §626.9541 (1)(i)(3)
(d, e, f, g & h), imposed upon insurers under §624.03].
104 Plaintiff objected to defendant's estimate claiming that Defendant breached both the loss
payment condition and the loss settlement condition in the contract because it failed to satisfy its
duty to adjust and properly investigate the claim pursuant to the loss payment condition (and the
law) which resulted in Defendant substantially undervaluing the value of the loss - (a breach of
the loss settlement condition). Defendant did not adequately respond to Plaintiff's objection.105 Plaintiff submits that the satisfaction of the duty to adjust (which contemplates a duty to
properly investigate) contained in the loss payment condition is a condition precedent to any
other condition in the policy regardless of coverage, while defendant simply ignores its duty to
adjust or properly investigate claims under the loss payment condition - leap frogging to a
conclusion that anything its decides to pay, ipse dixit, constitutes full compliance.
106 There is a bona fide, actual, present and practical need for a declaration of rights as
Plaintiff is unsure as to whether Defendant's $2,755.14 payment on a claim [exceeding ]
constitutes ‘compliance’ with the contract's loss settlement condition absent allegations of
satisfaction with and proof of satisfaction of the loss payment condition [proof of a proper
adjustment under law], or absent an agreement from Plaintiff that the amount is the actual cash
value.
107 Defendant claims that its estimate and payment of $2,755.14 constitutes full compliance
with the loss settlement condition of the contract, and compliance with F. S. § 627.7011(3)
without referencing any compliance with the loss payment condition.
108 Plaintiff submits that where there is no agreement as to the actual cash value of the
loss, Defendant cannot claim compliance with the loss settlement condition without first
alleging compliance with such a condition precedent and then proving compliance with the loss
payment condition/duty to properly adjust the claim.
109 Logically, Plaintiff states that the loss payment condition/duty to adjust the loss must
occur before any determination of the actual cash value stated in the loss settlement condition,
and is thus a condition precedent.
110 Plaintiff's request for the declaration deals with a present, ascertained or ascertainable
state of facts in this present controversy as construction of the contract, and determination ofwhether the loss payment condition is a condition precedent to the loss settlement condition in
the contract. F.S. §627.419(1).
111 Plaintiff's rights to a fair adjustment of the claim by law and under this insurance policy
is dependent upon the facts and the law of contractual construction applicable to the facts. The
court is vested with the jurisdiction to construe contracts.
112 The parties have adverse interests. The issue of Defendant's interpretation of how
actual cash value is determined represents an actual, present, adverse and antagonist interest in
the subject matter, in both fact and law.
113 The proper parties are all before the court by proper process and the relief sought is not
merely the giving of legal advice by the courts or the answer to questions propounded from
curiosity. The parties have a stake in the outcome of the decision.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a declaration of its rights which states:
113.01 that the loss payment condition containing the duty to adjust and fully investigate the loss
is a condition precedent to the loss settlement condition.
113.02 that Defendant must allege and prove satisfaction of the loss payment condition duty to
adjust the loss as a condition precedent to claiming satisfaction of the loss settlement condition.
113.03 Defendant cannot ipse dixit claim that whatever it has paid on the claim is the full actual
cash value of the loss as that term is construed by law absent allegations and proof of satisfaction
of all conditions precedent to such a claim, including the loss payment condition, and
113.04 That Plaintiff be awarded its attorney’s fees and costs for seeking this declaration of
rights.
COUNT 8 - BREACH OF CONTRACT [if there is a contract]
114 Plaintiff adopts, re-alleges and re-avers the paragraphs contained in the sectionAllegations Common to All Counts and Incorporated Therein as if and as though fully set forth
herein.
115 Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract which provided insurance over the
Plaintiff's property at 521 SW 70th Terrace, Pembroke Pines, FL 33023, in Broward County,
Florida, Policy Numbers SPIH0256678-02. Plaintiff has attached a copy of the policy (Exhibit
A) to show coverages for the term December 28, 2014 to December 28, 2015. Defendant agreed
to provide such coverages - on the date or dates of processing indicated on the Declaration of
Coverages page.
116 Plaintiff incurred the June 10, 2015 claim as stated above and suffered a loss as described
above for the June 10, 2015 loss.
117 Defendant failed to properly adjust the June 10, 2015 claim pursuant to law and has
breached the loss payment condition of the policy, resulting in damages to the Plaintiff.
Moreover, the breach of the loss payment condition triggered a violation of the loss settlement
condition and also a violation by Defendant to properly adjust the claim within 90 days of the
casualty, resulting in damages in the amount in controversy alleged above to Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages in the above amounts or as the proofs
may show against Defendant, together with Attorneys fees and costs, pursuant to Statute, and
such other relief as this Court deems meet and proper or equitable.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for those issues that are so triable against Defendant
pursuant to Florida law.
Respectfully Submitted,BARNARD LAW OFFICES LP
9655 So. Dixie Highway, Suite 200
Miami, FL. 33156
305-665-0000/ fax 305-669-9666
/s/ Andrew C. Barnard
BY:
ANDREW C. BARNARD, Esq
Fl Bar No 281697
/T\BLO(S)\Non-Citizens Files\Flores, Luz Del Carmen\PLEADINGS\Complaint, Answer, Reply\l complaint.wpdAaa macneill qroup. ine cings:
3 9 ¢
ma cneillg rou p 1300 sawgrass corporate parkway telephone 954.331.4800 infoSmacneiligroup.com
a sauw nen foeus wed ones swite 300 toll free 800.432.3072 wwwemacneiligroup.com
\ i i y 7 : suntise florida 33323-2804 facsimle 954.331.4848
June 18, 2015
| hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct certified copy of the policy you
requested for LUZ DEL CARMEN FLORES Policy NumberSPIH0256678-02.
Print Name: lona Hoffman
Title: SafePoint Team Lead
MacNeill Group Inc.
State of Florida
County of Broward
With respect to the above: 18 day of June 2015, by Mari Jones, the information contained
within this document is accurate and true.
EXHIBIT A
eta» BS0000 :Puz ZO -ueYy
€L OL N10 SIS
€L OL OG JIS
€L OL v2 IS
€L Ob v6 EZ OIS
€L Ob OZ €Z DIS
+6 70 96 #0 OH
OL 20 SS91-Ld-dlO
€L Ob €-OH DIS 90
€L OL €-OH OIS
:eBeg uoleJej99q ay} YjIM pasojous aie (s)Wa}! BuImojjo} oy,
“AINJOsed |eUOJEW SI] Ma|AGJ OSEA|q
“(\UeWNDOP MAIAIBAO
Aoyjod) abeg suonesejoeq pue Aotjod unoA puy ||M NOA pasojouy
“Ajiwie4 yulodayes oy} Bululof 10} NoA yueYyL
sJepjoyAalod panje, se9q
0000-Z0-8Z99SZ0OHIdS “4equinNn AoN0d
“ssaulsng
Ano ayeioaudde any ‘Ayadoud nod aunsul 0} sn Burs. 10} NOA yUBYL
*(Woo"ysajowap) ‘ouU] ‘yosjowaq Aq jeuoNndsoxy y pale si julodayes
“=mouy no pig
abeg saley
ZEOL-EZOLE TA ‘SUI OYOIQUIOd
491 WYOL MS Les
$3yO14 NAWeVO 140 ZN1
9L06-SPEEE 14 ‘eSUUNS ‘9206-Sb XO Od
WOd'sU]JUIOgaJeS' MMM
BOURINSUI
JUIOGases
7ee
SafePoint
Insurance
Welcome to Safepoint!
| would like to personally welcome you as a Safepoint policyholder. We know you have many
choices in the Florida marketplace and we appreciate the opportunity to earn your business.
Our mission is to provide superior customer service, comprehensive coverage, fast and friendly
claims service and to give our policyholders Peace of Mind.
Let me give you some additional information about who we are. Safepoint is a Florida licensed
insurance company based in Tampa specializing in residential property insurance products.We
offer a wide ranging product line to accommodate most of your residential property needs. With
over $25 Million in policyholder surplus and a dedicated Florida presence, Safepoint has the
financial resources to protect your most important assets. Safepoint has earned a rating of “B”
from AM Best, a nationally recognized organization that has been rating insurance carriers since
1906. In addition, Safepoint has also earned an “A Exceptional” financial rating from Demotech,
an organization that rates insurance carriers on their financial stability.
Our Management Team is comprised of experienced professionals with over 75 years in the
insurance industry - more than half spent in the state of Florida. Our knowledge and experience
in the Florida insurance market gives us the ability to provide you with the products that you
need for a value you can afford.
We sincerely appreciate your business and hope to continue to earn your business on every
renewal. Your Peace of Mind starts here.
Best regards,
CLE
David Flitman
CEO
Please contact us or your agent if you have any questions or need more information.
www.safepointins.com
Customer Service: 877-858-7445
To Report a New Claim: 866-482-5246i __
SafePoint
www.SafePointins.com
Dear Policyholder:
A new federal law requires us, as your residential property insurer, to provide you with a copy of
our Privacy Policy. We are glad to have this opportunity to do so and to communicate to you our
commitment to guard against inappropriate disclosure of nonpublic personal information.
Our Privacy Policy
We collect and use information necessary to administer your policy and provide you with efficient
customer service. We collect and maintain several types of information needed for these
purposes, such as those below:
+ — Information provided by you on your application for insurance coverage, such as your name,
address, telephone number, age of your home, and type of construction.
« Information gathered from you as our insured, such as how long you've been our
insured, your payment history, what kind of coverage you have, underwriting
information and claims information.
Limited Disclosure
We do not disclose any nonpublic personal information about you or any of our policyholders to
anyone except as permitted by law.
Protecting Confidentiality
When we share nonpublic personal information about you, as permitted by law, we protect that
personal information with a confidentiality agreement that obligates the recipient of the
information to keep it confidential.
SIC PRI 01 14ae
SafePoint
INSUrFANCE
HOMEOWNERS
POLICY
Safepoint Insurance Company
P.O, Box 459076
Sunrise, FL 33345-9076
Claims: 1-866-482-5246
Customer Service: 1-877-858-7445
YOUR HOMEOWNERS POLICY DOES NOT PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR
DAMAGE TO YOUR PROPERTY CAUSED BY FLOOD. YOUR AGENT CAN
HELP YOU PROCURE A SEPARATE FLOOD POLICY THROUGH THE
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
SIC HOJ 12 13This Policy Jacket with the Policy Form, Declarations Page, and Endorsements, if any, issued to
form a part thereof, completes the policy as numbered on the Declarations Page.
POLICY PROVISION: All premiums for this insurance shall be computed in accordance with
Safepoint Insurance Company’s rules, forms, rating plans, premiums and minimum premiums
applicable to the insurance afforded herein which are in effect at the inception of the insurance
and, each anniversary thereof, including the date of interim changes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Safepoint Insurance Company has caused this instrument to be signed
by its President.
Brag?
CEL LLG
David Flitman
President, Safepoint Insurance Company
SIC HOJ 12 13a Important Phone Numbers:
Safe Po i n t Your Agent: (754) 263-2160
Customer Service: (877) 858-7445,
Insurance Claims Reporting: (866) 482-5246
www.SafePointins.com
PO Box 45-9076, Sunrise, FL 33345-9076
POLICY NUMBER: SPIH0256678-02-0000
Previous Policy Number: FRJH6105586.
HOMEOWNERS HO-3 POLICY DECLARATIONS
Renewal
Policy Effective Date: 12/28/2014 12:01 AM
Policy Expiration Date: 12/28/2015 12:01 AM
Insured Name and Mailing Address: Oley Exniation Date eee
YOUR SAFEPOINT AGENT IS:
LUZ DEL CARMEN FLORES. David Treusch
521 SW 70th Ter All American Insurance Consultants, Inc.
Pembroke Pines, FL 33023-1032 4120 Davie Road Ext. Ste # 304
Hollywood, FL 33024
(754) 263-2160
Insured location covered by this policy:
521 SW 70TH TER
PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33023-1032
County: BROWARD
TOTAL ANNUAL POLICY PREMIUM $3,763.57
The Hurricane portion of the Premium is: $1,638.00
The Non-Hurricane portion of the Premium is: $2,125.57.
COVERAGE IS PROVIDED WHERE A PREMIUM OR LIMIT OF LIABILITY IS SHOWN FOR THE COVERAGE
SECTION I - PROPERTY COVERAGES LIMIT PREMIUM
Coverage - A - (Dwelling) $268,000 $3,799
Coverage - B - (Other Structure) $5,360 ~$82
Coverage - C - (Personal Property) $67,000 -$134
Coverage - D - (Loss Of Use) $26,800 INCLUDED
SECTION | - DEDUCTIBLES Incase of a loss, we only cover that part of the loss over the deductible stated:
All Other Perils Deductible - $2,500
Sinkhole Deductible - $26,800 (10% of Coverage A)
Hurricane Deductible - $5,360 (2% of Coverage A)
SECTION Il - LIABILITY COVERAGES
Coverage - E - (Personal Liability) $100,000 $35
Coverage - F - (Medical Payments) $2,000 INCLUDED
CREDITS AND SURCHARGES
Age of Home Surcharge Included
Coverage B Percentage Credit Included
Coverage C Percentage Credit Included
Windstorm Loss Mitigation Credit Included
Deductible Credit Included
Print Date 10/29/2014 Page 1 of 3 SIC VHODEC2 01 14
Ren: 02, End: 0000ae
SafePoint
insurance
www.SafePointins.com
PO Box 45-9076, Sunrise, FL 33345-9076
POLICY NUMBER: SPIH0256678-02-0000
Previous Policy Number: FRJH6105586
Important Phone Numbers:
Your Agent: (754) 263-2160
Customer Service: (877) 858-7445
Claims Reporting: (866) 482-5246
POLICY FEES $111.57
Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund Fee $2.00
Managing General Agency Fee $25.00
Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund Assessment $47.80
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation 2005 Emergency Assessment $36.77
OPTIONAL COVERAGES PREMIUM Limit $34.00
SIC 23 94 Sinkhole Loss Coverage $34.00
Premium Change Due to Rate Change $0.00
Premium Change Due to Coverage Change $0.00
Premium Change Due to Change in Fees $0.00
Policy Forms and Endorsements:
SIC HO-3 10 13
OC SIC HO-3 10 13
OIR-B1-1655 02 10
HO 04 96 04 91
SIC 23 70 10 13
SIC 23 94 10 13
SIC 24 10 13
SIC DO 10 13
SIC OLN 10 13
Rating Information:
Construction: Masonry Automatic Sprinklers: None
Year Built: 1964 Opening Protection: None
Occupied By: Owner Roof Shape: Gable
Usage Type: Primary
BCEG Grade: 99
Territory: 037
Protection Class: 01
Exclude Wind Coverage: No
Burglar Alarm: None
Fire Alarm: None
FIRST MORTGAGEE
Loan# 0047835079
WELLS FARGO BANK NA 512 ISAOA
PO BOX 7512
SPRINGFIELD, OH 45501-7512
Authorized Countersignature: 7
arate: £75 Hela
Print Date 10/29/2014 Page 2 of 3 SIC VHODEC2 01 14
Ren: 02, End: 0000ae Important Phone Numbers:
Sa fe p oO i n t Your Agent: (754) 263-2160
Customer Service: (877) 858-7445
Insurance Claims Reporting: (866) 482-5246
www.SafePointins.com
PO Box 45-9076, Sunrise, FL 33345-9076
POLICY NUMBER: SPIH0256678-02-0000
Previous Policy Number: FRJH6105586
NOTICES
THIS POLICY CONTAINS A SEPARATE DEDUCTIBLE FOR
HURRICANE LOSSES, WHICH MAY RESULT IN HIGH
OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES TO YOU.
ORDINANCE OR LAW COVERAGE IS AN IMPORTANT
COVERAGE THAT YOU MAY WISH TO PURCHASE. YOU MAY
ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER THE PURCHASE OF FLOOD
INSURANCE FROM THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
PROGRAM. WITHOUT THIS COVERAGE, YOU MAY HAVE
UNCOVERED LOSSES. PLEASE DISCUSS THESE COVERAGES
WITH YOUR INSURANCE AGENT.
THIS POLICY CONTAINS A SEPARATE DEDUCTIBLE FOR SINKHOLE
LOSSES, WHICH MAY RESULT IN HIGH OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES TO
YOU.
You may reduce your policy premium by taking advantage of premium credits for shutter, housing features and other
mitigation (loss prevention) devices. Contact your insurance agent to request information that may allow you to receive these
discounts.
Your Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule adjustment is 0.00%The adjustment applies only to the wind portion of
the premium and can range from a surcharge of 1.9% to a credit of 13.2%
Property Coverage limit may increase at renewal due to an inflation factor determined by MSB Index of construction costs to
maintain insurance to the approximate replacement cost of your home.
Print Date 10/29/2014 Page 3 of 3 SIC VHODEC2 01 14
Ren: 02, End: 0000Checklist of Coverage
Policy Type: Homeowner's
(Indicate: Homeowner's, Condominium Unit Owner's, Tenant's, Dwelling, or Mobile Home Owner's)
The following checklist is for informational purposes only. Florida law prohibits this checklist from changing any of the provisions of the
insurance contract which is the subject of this checklist. Any endorsement regarding changes in types of coverage, exclusions, limitations,
reductions, deductibles, coinsurance, renewal provisions, cancellation provisions, surcharges, or credits will be sent separately.
Reviewing this checklist together with your policy can help you gain a better understanding of your policy's actual coverages and limitations, and
may even generate questions. By addressing any questions now, you will be more prepared later in the event of a claim. Experience has
shown that many questions tend to arise regarding the coverage of attached or detached screened pool enclosures, screened porches, and
other types of enclosures. Likewise, if your policy insures a condominium unit, questions may arise regarding the coverage of certain items,
such as individual heating and air conditioning units; individual water heaters; floor, wall, and ceiling coverings; built-in cabinets and counter
tops; appliances; window treatments and hardware; and electrical fixtures. A clear understanding of your policy's coverages and limitations will
reduce confusion that may arise during claims settlement.
Please refer to the policy for details and any exceptions to the coverages listed in this checklist. All coverages are subject to the provisions and
conditions of the policy and any endorsements. If you have questions regarding your policy, please contact your agent or company. Consumer
assistance is available from the Department of Financial Services, Division of Consumer Services’ Helpline at (800) 342-2762 or
www.fidfs.com.
This form was adopted by the Florida Financial Services Commission.
Dwelling Structure Coverage (Place of Residence)
Limit of Insurance: $268,000 Loss Settlement Basis: Replacement Cost
(i.e. Replacement Cost, Actual Cash Value, Stated Value, etc.)
Other Structures Coverage (Detached from Dwelling)
Limit of Insurance: $5,360 Loss Settlement Basis: Replacement Cost
(i.e. Replacement Cost, Actual Cash Value, Stated Value, etc.)
Personal Property Coverage
Limit of Insurance: $67,000 Loss Settlement Basis: Actual Cash Value
(ie. Replacement Cost, Actual Cash Value, Stated Value, etc.)
Deductibles
Annual Hurricane: $5,360 All Perils (Other Than Hurricane): $2,500
(New 01/06)
OIR-B1-1670 Page 1 of 4Checklist of Coverage (continued)
The above Limit of Insurance, Deductibles, and Loss Settlement Basis apply to the following perils insured against:
(Items below marked Y (Yes) indicate coverage IS included, those marked N (No) indicate coverage is NOT included)
Fire or Lightnin:
Hurricane’
Flood (including storm surge) EXCLUDED
Windstorm or Hail (other than hurricane)
Explosion
«
Riot or Civil Commotion
Aircraft
Vehicles
‘Smoke
Vandalism or Malicious Mischief
Theft
Falling Objects
Weight of Ice, Snow or Sleet
‘Accidental Discharge or Overflow of Water or Steam
‘Sudden and Accidental Tearing Apart, Cracking, Buming or Bulging
Freezing
‘Sudden and Accidental Damage from Artificially Generated Electrical Current
Volcanic Eruption
Sinkhole
‘Any Other Peril Not Specifically Excluded (dwelling and other structures only)
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Special limits and loss settlement exceptions may apply to certain items. Refer to your policy for details.
Loss of Use Coverage
Coverage [Limit of insurance I Time Limit
(Items below marked Y (Yes) indicate coverage IS included, those marked N (No) indicate coverage is NOT included)
Y | Additional Living Expense $26,800 Shortest time required to
repair/replace/relocate:
Y | Fair Rental Value $26,800 Shortest time required to repairireplace
Y | Civil Authority Prohibits Use $26,800 2 weeks maximum
(New 01/06)
OIR-B1-1670 Page 2 of 4Checklist of Coverage (continued)
Property - Additional/Other Coverages
Limit of up to ‘Amount of insurance is an additional amount of coverage or is included within
(Items below marked Y (Yes) indicate coverage IS $268,000 the policy limit.
included, those marked N (No) indicate coverage is 4 —
NOT included) Unless Otherwise Included Additional
Nott
y 5% of the Above
Debris Removal arene Y
Y | Reasonable Repairs Y
Y_ | Property Removed M
y_ | Sredit Card, Electronic Fund Transfer Card or Access Device} gso9 y
Forgery and Counterfeit Money
Y | Loss Assessment $1,000 Y
Y [Collapse Y
Y | Glass or Safety Glaze Material Y
Y | Landiora's Furnishings $2,500 Y
Y | Law and Ordinance $67,000 Y
N | Grave Markers
Y | Mold/Fungi $10,000 Y
(New 01/06)
OIR-B1-1670
Page 3 of 4Checklist of Covera:
Discounts
(Items below marked Y (Yes) indicate discount IS applied, those marked N
No) indicate discount is NOT applied)
N_] Multiple Poli
Fire Alarm / Smoke Alarm / Burglar Alarm
Sprinkler
Windstorm Loss Reduction
Bui
Preview
Case Number: CACE-15-022300 Division: 21 Filing # 35715976 E-Filed 12/18/2015 12:37:53 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL CIRCUIT DIVISION CASE NO. LUZ DEL CARMEN FLORES, Plaintiff, SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant COMPLAINT COMES NOW, LUZ DEL CARMEN FLORES (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF”) and sues SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY (“DEFENDANT”) and says: ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS AND INCORPORATED THEREIN 1 This is an action for damages in excess of this court’s minimum jurisdictional limits and for Attorneys’ fees and costs, and/or for declaratory and other relief. 2 PLAINTIFF is an individual, sui juris, presently residing in Broward County, Florida. 3 Defendant, SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY, (hereafter “Defendant”) is a Florida corporation engaged in the sale and provision of homeowners insurance. It actively does business in Broward County, Florida. 4 The causes of action sued upon accrued in Broward County, Florida as these causes of action involve a purported property insurance contract that involves the parties with respect to a piece of real property located in said county. 5 All conditions precedent to suit have been complied with, substantially complied with or *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 12/18/2015 12:37:59 PM.****waived. Defendant has not suffered any prejudice. 6 By virtue of the conduct of the Defendant as hereinafter alleged, Plaintiff has been required to retain the services of the undersigned Counsel to represent the insured in this action and is obligated to pay a reasonable fee for such services and is therefore entitled to recover such fees from Defendant pursuant to Florida law. 7 The declarations page of Exhibit A expressly represents the existence and sale of insurance coverage/protection as do all the marketing programs of the defendant and even the defendant’s name: "SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY". 8 Defendant had the specific intent that Plaintiff, and others in like position, would repose their confidence in the defendant as it relates to purchasing insurance coverage and protection for the purposes which were communicated to the defendant at or shortly before the time of sale of Exhibit A to Plaintiff. 9 Plaintiff suffered a loss to its property on or about June 10, 2015 for damages to the risk property listed on the declarations of coverages page caused by heavy winds caused damage to the roof creating opening through which water entered the risk premises in such a fashion as to cause substantial damage to the risk property, the costs to replace or repair the casualty loss being approximately $20,000, and pursuant to the rules set forth in the insurance policy writing attached as Exhibit A, timely reported it to Defendant. 10 Defendant assigned claim number 20157631 to the sudden and unexpected June 10, 2015 loss. 11 Tf there is a contract, Plaintiff's property suffered covered losses [or was damaged if there is no contract] in the gross amount of approximately $20,000 during the policy period, which Defendant either partially or totally refuses to pay.ACTION TO REFORM AN EGR CONERIET TO CONFORM WTH A JURY'S DETERMINATION OF THE PARTIES! INTENT IF PROVEN TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THE PLAIN WORDING OF THE POLICY AND UPON SUCH DETERMINATION, ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DETERMINING WHETHER THE "WEAR AND TEAR, MARRING, DETERIORATION" EXCEPTION RENDERS THE POLICY ILLUSORY OR WHETHER THE PROVISION IS VOID 12 Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the above allegations as though restated fully herein. 13 Plaintiff seeks a jury determination of the parties' intent on the reach of the "wear and tear, marring, deterioration" exception to coverage, and subsequently, an order from the court reforming the contract to conform the reach of the exception pursuant to the jury’s determination of the parties! intent. Thereupon a declaration is requested from the court as to whether the attached Exhibit A [as reformed by the court in conformity with the jury’s determination of the parties’ intent] is an enforceable contract, or a non-enforceable illusion. Essentially, first a jury determination of the parties’ intent on the reach of the "wear and tear, marring, deterioration" exception to coverage, then a court ordered reformation of the contract and then a declaration as to whether the policy is illusory. 14 The policy (Exhibit A) Numbered SPIH0256678-02, with policy term from December 28, 2014 to December 28, 2015 was issued by Defendant on the date indicated therein. 15 Before the loss, Plaintiff thought it had purchased and was led to believe that there existed a contract with Defendant which would provide property insurance coverage to the Plaintiff's property per the declarations page which is part of Exhibit A. 16 The declarations page reads that various 'coverages' existed over the property located at 521 SW 70th Terrace, Pembroke Pines, FL 33023, in Broward County, Florida, per said Exhibit A.17 The parties intended that Exhibit A be an enforceable insurance contract but there is a provision in the contract which is inconsistent with the embodiment of the purpose of the contract as alleged herein. 18 On one hand, per Exhibit A, Defendant states in the declarations page that Plaintiff's property was insured with various coverages. 19 On the other hand per Exhibit A, the “wear and tear, marring, deterioration” policy exception eviscerates any of the coverages represented in the declaration page for any loss involving damage. 20 This contradiction in coverage is patently irreconcilable with the purpose of the insurance contract and the parties’ agreement to have an enforceable contract. 21 " Marring", " wear and tear" and "deterioration" are terms meaning 'damage' of intended use or obsolescence, with no limitation as to amount. [Plaintiff's demand for the court to take judicial notice]. 22 Thus, the 'wear and tear, marring, and deterioration’ policy exception patently conflicts with the intent of the parties to enter into an enforceable insurance contract shown by the declarations page because the exception eviscerates all coverages for any loss involving damage. 23 Plaintiff submits that the parties intended that the exception apply only to intentional or non-accidental losses and suggests that this is the only reasonable interpretation. 24 Defendant claims that the exception must be taken literally. 25 If the provision is determined to be too vague by a jury, the provision can be excised as unconscionable . 26 Given the unambiguous policy exception and definition of 'marring' - literally meaning any type of damage - and the fact that all losses involve 'wear and tear' and ‘deterioration’,defendant has no obligation to pay any loss involving any damage despite the parties’ intentions to enter into an enforceable insurance contract as shown by the declarations of coverages page. 27 The policy - when taken literally as written - is illusory because of a lack of mutuality of obligation! on the part of the insurance company. 28 The exception, due to the literal and qualitative meaning of the terms ‘wear and tear’, ‘matring' and ‘deterioration’ which contain no limitation within the policy, exist in all claims and is void as unconscionable. 29 The intent of the parties to enter into an enforceable insurance contract is a question of fact for the jury, because neither party can unilaterally waive the provision under law, F.S. §627.419(1). Asa result, the policy needs to be reformed in conformity with a jury determination of the parties’ intent on the reach of the exception, or whether the provision is void, regardless of whether the offensive exception is the product of the parties' mutual mistake, or unilateral mistake on the part of one party and inequitable conduct by the other. 30 This action is authorized and jurisdiction exists in this court under F.S. § 86.011, Fla. Stat. (1990), and pursuant to Article 5, Sec., 5, Fla. Constitution. 31 The ambiguity as to coverage is patent, arising from a contradiction between the unambiguous exception language contained in the policy agreement, and the parties intent to enter into an insurance contract as represented by the declarations of coverages page. 32 There is a bona fide, actual, present and practical need for a declaration as Plaintiff is unsure as to whether an enforceable insurance policy exists between the parties due to the patent ' Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Corrections, 471 So.2d 4, 5 (Fla.1984): “It is basic hornbook law that a contract which is not mutually enforceable is an illusory contract. * * * [Cites omitted] * * * . Where one party retains to itself the option of fulfilling or declining to fulfill its obligations under the contract, there is no valid contract and neither side may be bound.”conflict between the all encompassing policy exception which eviscerates coverage on one hand which is inconsistent with the coverages advertised on the declarations page. 33 Plaintiff's request for this declaration deals with a present, ascertainable state of facts in this present controversy as the policy is inconsistent with the parties’ obvious intent to have an enforceable contract, but which intent does not exist when the entire policy must be read as a whole and given its plain meaning, F.S. § 627.419(1). Thus, the policy must be therefore reformed to accurately reflect the parties' agreement unless there was no agreement at all. 34 Plaintiff's rights to any benefit under this contract is dependent upon the factual determination of the parties’ intent as ascertained by a jury, and a subsequent order from the court reforming the policy in conformity with the jury determination of the parties’ intent, and then a court determination of whether the policy is illusory. 35 If the jury determines that the parties intended the exception to apply to all losses, the court must declare the policy illusory - there is no mutuality of obligation. 36 If the jury determines that the parties intended the exception to apply only to non- accidental losses or that it is unenforceable due to overbreath or unconsciousability, the court must reform the contract to correct the defect in the written instrument to reflect such finding. 37 The parties have adverse interests. There is no ability for Plaintiff to validly pursue any breach of contract claim unless the contract is reformed, because there is no enforceable contract in the face of the exception. 38 Plaintiff must be permitted to pursue the alternate remedies in tort for being tricked. 39 The issue of whether there is a contract upon reformation, or whether the contract is an unenforceable illusion represents an actual, present, adverse and antagonist interest in the subject matter, in both fact and law.40 The proper parties are all before the court by proper process or class representation and the relief sought is not merely the giving of legal advice by the courts or the answer to questions propounded from curiosity. The parties have a stake in the outcome of the decision. 41 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays: 41.01 that a jury determine whether the parties intended the above wear and tear, marring, and deterioration exception to apply only to non-accidental losses, or that it is void for overbreath and unconscionability, or whether the above exception applies to all losses; and 41.01.01 Upon a jury determination that the above exception was intended by the parties to include all losses, that the court declare the contract illusory and unenforceable, thereafter permitting trial on Plaintiff's alternative non-contract claims; or 41.01.02 upon a jury determination that the exception is void for overbreath or unconscionability or other reason, that the contract be reformed excising such provision. 41.01.03 Upon a jury determination on the reach of the exception, that the court declare the policy reformed in conformity with the jury's determination of the parties’ intent of that exception's reach and permit trial on Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract if there is a contract, and on the torts if not; and 41.02 That Plaintiff be awarded its attorney’s fees and costs for seeking this declaration of rights. COUNT 2 COMMON LAW NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, Alternatively: in the event that there is no contract 42 Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations common to all counts above as though restated fully herein. 43 Plaintiff was led to believe that the insured had entered into a contract with Defendantwhich would provide property insurance coverage to the Plaintiff's property at 521 SW 70th Terrace, Pembroke Pines, FL 33023, in Broward County, Florida, Policy Number SPTH0256678-02 for the term December 28, 2014 to December 28, 2015 (Exhibit A). 44 While the “Declarations” page represents that the policy provides various ‘all risk' coverages in various amounts, and while the body of the policy also represents that the policy provides coverages, the “wear and tear, marring, deterioration” exception from coverage eviscerates any damage coverage for any loss. 45 The " wear and tear, marring, deterioration" exception to coverage contained in the insurance policy causes the policy to be illusory and unenforceable. 46 Defendant's sale of the policy was the product of a misrepresentation of material fact; Defendant stated that it would provide a policy of insurance that would cover all damage claims unless specifically excluded which turns out to be false. 47 Defendant's statement that it was providing coverage over Plaintiff's property was material. 48 As a product of the misrepresentation Defendant was able to gain Plaintiff's confidence to sell a policy to Plaintiff that does not cover any loss involving damage. 49 Defendant either knew of the misrepresentation, or made the misrepresentation without knowledge of its truth or falsity or should have known the representation was false. 50 Defendant intended Plaintiff to rely on Defendant's misrepresentation, so that Plaintiff would buy the worthless and illusory policy. 51 Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendant's misrepresentation regarding insurance coverage, in that Plaintiff purchased the illusory policy from Defendant that is attached to this complaint. 52 Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amounts as stated above or to be proven at trial.53 Plaintiff has also suffered loss of use damages, interest costs on Plaintiff's mortgage, default on Plaintiff's mortgage insurance clause that causes its mortgage debt to be accelerated as well as other consequential and foreseeable damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages, consequential damages, loss of use, interest, attorney’s fees and costs and such other amounts as the court may deem meet and proper after jury deliberations. COUNT 3 COMMON LAW FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT ALTERNATIVELY: in the event that there is no contract 54 Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations common to all counts above as though restated fully herein. 55 Plaintiff was led to believe that the insured had entered into a contract with Defendant which would provide property insurance coverage to the Plaintiff's property at 521 SW 70th Terrace, Pembroke Pines, FL 33023, in Broward County, Florida, Policy Number SPIH0256678-02 for the term December 28, 2014 to December 28, 2015 (Exhibit A). 56 While the “Declarations” page represents that the policy provides various ‘all risk' coverages in various amounts, and while the body of the policy also represents that the policy provides coverages, the “wear and tear, marring, deterioration” exception from coverage eviscerates any damage coverage for any loss. 57 The " wear and tear, marring, deterioration" exception to coverage contained in the insurance policy causes the policy to be illusory and unenforceable. 58 Defendant's sale of the policy was the product of a misrepresentation of material fact; Defendant stated that it would provide a policy of insurance that would cover all damage claims unless specifically excluded at the time of sale, and followed the misrepresentation with amailing of the policy to Plaintiff through the US mail. 59 Defendant's statement that it was providing coverage over Plaintiff's property was material. 60 As a product of the misrepresentation Defendant was able to gain Plaintiff's confidence to sell a policy to Plaintiff that does not cover any loss involving damage. 61 Plaintiff was induced to purchase a worthless insurance policy because the insured justifiably relied on Defendant's misrepresentation regarding coverage, in that Plaintiff purchased the Policy that is attached to this complaint thinking that said Policy would provide coverage for sudden, accidental, and fortuitous losses to Plaintiff's property, when in fact, the policy specifically excepts from coverage any loss involving damage, regardless if fortuitous. 62 Plaintiff has suffered damages for fraud in the inducement in the amounts stated above in the contract counts in that Plaintiff has suffered property damage to its property, only to now find that there was no enforceable policy of insurance between the parties. 63 Plaintiff has also suffered loss of use damages, interest costs on Plaintiff's mortgage as well as other consequential and foreseeable damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages, consequential damages, loss of. use, interest, costs and such other amounts as the court may deem meet and proper after jury deliberations. COUNT 4 COMMON LAW FRAUD ALTERNATIVELY: in the event that there is no contract 64 Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations common to all counts above as though restated fully herein. 65 Plaintiff was led to believe by Defendant's statements and actions that the insured hadentered into a contract with Defendant which would provide property insurance coverage to the Plaintiff's property at 521 SW 70th Terrace, Pembroke Pines, FL 33023, in Broward County, Florida, Policy Number SPTH0256678-02 for the term December 28, 2014 to December 28, 2015 (Exhibit A). 66 Defendant's representations that coverage for fortuitous losses existed under the policy was wilfully made and was false and was known to be false when it was made because Defendant is the author of the exception language or at least controlled its inclusion into the policy, Defendant’s agents made the representations of coverage to Plaintiff at the time of sale, and defendant repeated the statement by mailing a copy of the declarations page with the policy to Plaintiff through the US mail. 67 The misrepresentation was wilfully made on the date that the declarations page was processed and delivered to Plaintiff, as well as on the date any application information was processed by Defendant's sales agents. These dates are particularly known to defendant who keeps track of such matters. 68 While the “Declarations” page represents that the policy provides various ‘all risk' coverages in various amounts, and while the body of the policy also represents that the policy provides various coverages, the “wear and tear, marring, deterioration” exception from coverage eviscerates any coverage for damages related to any loss. 69 The " wear and tear, marring, deterioration" exception to coverage contained in the insurance policy causes the policy to be illusory and unenforceable. 70 Defendant's statement that it was providing coverage over Plaintiff's property was material and wilful. 71 Defendant intended that Plaintiff rely on Defendant's representation, so that Defendantcould sell the insured a worthless policy. 72 Plaintiff relied on Defendant's misrepresentation regarding coverage. B Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amounts proven at trial in addition to property losses alleged herein. 74 Plaintiff has also suffered loss of use damages, interest costs on Plaintiff's mortgage as well as other consequential and foreseeable damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages, consequential damages, loss of use, interest, costs and such other amounts as the court may deem meet and proper after jury deliberations. COUNT 5 - CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD 75 Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations common to all counts above as though restated fully herein. 76 Defendant wilfully made a statement that it would provide a policy of insurance that would cover all damage claims unless specifically excluded at the time of sale of the policy, and on the date of processing of the declarations page, and on the date of mailing the declaration page and the policy to the Plaintiff through the US mail. 77 However, the purported policy of insurance contains another statement within it that excepts from coverage ALL claims that involved “wear and tear, marring or deterioration.” "Wear and tear", "marring" and "deterioration" all mean damage. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, Defendant sold a policy to Plaintiff that does not cover any claim involving damage. 78 The statements were made on the processing dates of the declaration of coverage pages, the dates upon which the application for insurance was taken and on the delivery dates of the policy in question.79 In addition to the verbal misrepresentations of coverage attendant to the application for and the sale of the insurance policy to Plaintiff, the statements were also made on the face of the documents at the corporate offices of Defendant, and communicated to Plaintiff by delivery through the mail. 80 Defendant offered to insure Plaintiff's property in a matter calculated to repose confidence and trust in Defendant, through Defendant's brochures of protections afforded, verbal assurances, television advertising, as well as trade advertising on the importance of insurance, that the insurance was sufficient for Plaintiff's needs incorporated into its effective sales ‘pitch’, culminating in a Declaration of Coverages pages which, for all intents and purposes, represents that upon payment, Plaintiff will be covered on an all risk policy for sudden and accidental losses not specifically excluded. 81 As a result of such offers and sales techniques, Defendant established a relationship of trust and confidence from Plaintiff to the Defendant that Plaintiff would be protected fully in the event of a fortuitous loss [sudden and accidental loss not specifically excluded]. 82 Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, there was included an exception to any damage for any loss provision hidden deep within the policy. 83 As a result, Defendant has taken unconsciousable advantage of Plaintiff's confidence and trust which Plaintiff reposed in Defendant, to Plaintiff's prejudice. 84 Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the broken trust and confidence established by Defendant's actions in the amounts proven at trial. 85 Plaintiff has also suffered loss of use damages, interest costs on Plaintiff's mortgage, breach of Plaintiff's Mortgage security agreement as to the insurance clause and possible accelleration of the mortgage loan debt, a possible loss of Plaintiff's home as well as otherconsequential and foreseeable damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages, consequential damages, loss of use, interest, costs and such other amounts as the court may deem meet and proper after jury deliberations. COUNT 6 Common Law Estoppel Alternatively: in the event that there is no contract 86 Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations common to all counts above as though restated fully herein. 87 Defendant made a statement that it would provide a policy of insurance that would cover all damage claims unless specifically excluded. 88 However, the purported policy of insurance contains another statement within it that excepts from coverage ALL claims that involved “wear and tear, marring or deterioration.” 89 "Wear and tear", "marring" and "deterioration" all mean damage. 90 Plaintiff relied upon Defendant's statements that it was providing insurance for fortuitous losses, unknowing that Defendant sold had actually sold a policy to Plaintiff that does not cover any loss involving damage. 91 Defendant's statements that enforceable insurance coverage existed are contrary to the exception provision in the policy that excepts from coverage any loss involving damage. The policy of insurance is illusory. 92 Thus, the representation of enforceable coverage at the time of purchase is contrary to the condition of affairs that actually exist on buried deep within the exceptions to coverage in the policy due to the exception for wear and tear, marring and deterioration; Plaintiff relied upon the representation of an enforceable insurance contract made by Defendant.93 As a result of such reliance Plaintiff changed its position from one who was seeking a policy of insurance protection on its home and for the benefit of its mortgage that provides for enforceable coverage, to one who had stopped seeking enforceable coverage for fortuitous losses for its home and mortgagee due to the reasonable belief that such coverage had been obtained. 94 Relying upon such belief, Plaintiff made a claim for a fortuitous loss, only to find that under the exceptions to its policy language, which, of course, includes the obnoxious ‘wear & tear, marring and deterioration’ exception, no coverage exists. 95 Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amounts to be proven at trial as a direct consequence of relying upon Defendant's statements. 96 Plaintiff has also suffered loss of use damages, interest costs on Plaintiff's mortgage as well as other consequential and foreseeable damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages, consequential damages, loss of use, interest, costs and such other amounts as the court may deem meet and proper after jury deliberations. COUNT 7 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATION THAT THE LOSS PAYMENT CONDITION CONTAINING THE DUTY TO ADJUST IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO ANY OTHER DUTY UNDER ANY OTHER CONDITION IN THE CONTRACT 97 Plaintiff re-alleges and re-avers the allegations common to all counts above as though restated fully herein. 98 Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this court that the duty to adjust a loss, which is contained in the loss payment condition of the policy, is a condition precedent to the payment of any sums under the loss settlement condition or any other duty or claim of performance byDefendant under this insurance contract, and that as a condition precedent, Defendant must allege and prove satisfaction of all conditions precedent before affirmatively asserting satisfaction by performance with the loss settlement condition or any other of the conditions in the contract. 99 Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract which provided insurance over the Plaintiff's property at 521 SW 70th Terrace, Pembroke Pines, FL 33023, in Broward County, Florida, Policy Number(s) SPIH0256678-02. Plaintiff has attached a copy of the policy to show coverages for the term from December 28, 2014 to December 28, 2015. Defendant agreed to provide such coverages - on the date or dates of processing indicated on the Declaration of Coverages page. (Exhibit A). 100 Defendant determined an arbitrary value of $2,755.14 for the loss and paid that amount claiming it as Plaintiff's total loss. 101 Concerned, Plaintiff's hired their own experts to check Defendant's loss estimate. 102 Plaintiff's experts valued the loss pursuant to law in the amount of $20,000. 103 Ignoring the remarkable difference in the values arrived at by Plaintiff's estimators, Defendant claims full compliance with the loss settlement condition of the contract, ignoring its duty imposed by the loss payment condition in the contract, and by law [F.S. §626.9541 (1)(i)(3) (d, e, f, g & h), imposed upon insurers under §624.03]. 104 Plaintiff objected to defendant's estimate claiming that Defendant breached both the loss payment condition and the loss settlement condition in the contract because it failed to satisfy its duty to adjust and properly investigate the claim pursuant to the loss payment condition (and the law) which resulted in Defendant substantially undervaluing the value of the loss - (a breach of the loss settlement condition). Defendant did not adequately respond to Plaintiff's objection.105 Plaintiff submits that the satisfaction of the duty to adjust (which contemplates a duty to properly investigate) contained in the loss payment condition is a condition precedent to any other condition in the policy regardless of coverage, while defendant simply ignores its duty to adjust or properly investigate claims under the loss payment condition - leap frogging to a conclusion that anything its decides to pay, ipse dixit, constitutes full compliance. 106 There is a bona fide, actual, present and practical need for a declaration of rights as Plaintiff is unsure as to whether Defendant's $2,755.14 payment on a claim [exceeding ] constitutes ‘compliance’ with the contract's loss settlement condition absent allegations of satisfaction with and proof of satisfaction of the loss payment condition [proof of a proper adjustment under law], or absent an agreement from Plaintiff that the amount is the actual cash value. 107 Defendant claims that its estimate and payment of $2,755.14 constitutes full compliance with the loss settlement condition of the contract, and compliance with F. S. § 627.7011(3) without referencing any compliance with the loss payment condition. 108 Plaintiff submits that where there is no agreement as to the actual cash value of the loss, Defendant cannot claim compliance with the loss settlement condition without first alleging compliance with such a condition precedent and then proving compliance with the loss payment condition/duty to properly adjust the claim. 109 Logically, Plaintiff states that the loss payment condition/duty to adjust the loss must occur before any determination of the actual cash value stated in the loss settlement condition, and is thus a condition precedent. 110 Plaintiff's request for the declaration deals with a present, ascertained or ascertainable state of facts in this present controversy as construction of the contract, and determination ofwhether the loss payment condition is a condition precedent to the loss settlement condition in the contract. F.S. §627.419(1). 111 Plaintiff's rights to a fair adjustment of the claim by law and under this insurance policy is dependent upon the facts and the law of contractual construction applicable to the facts. The court is vested with the jurisdiction to construe contracts. 112 The parties have adverse interests. The issue of Defendant's interpretation of how actual cash value is determined represents an actual, present, adverse and antagonist interest in the subject matter, in both fact and law. 113 The proper parties are all before the court by proper process and the relief sought is not merely the giving of legal advice by the courts or the answer to questions propounded from curiosity. The parties have a stake in the outcome of the decision. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a declaration of its rights which states: 113.01 that the loss payment condition containing the duty to adjust and fully investigate the loss is a condition precedent to the loss settlement condition. 113.02 that Defendant must allege and prove satisfaction of the loss payment condition duty to adjust the loss as a condition precedent to claiming satisfaction of the loss settlement condition. 113.03 Defendant cannot ipse dixit claim that whatever it has paid on the claim is the full actual cash value of the loss as that term is construed by law absent allegations and proof of satisfaction of all conditions precedent to such a claim, including the loss payment condition, and 113.04 That Plaintiff be awarded its attorney’s fees and costs for seeking this declaration of rights. COUNT 8 - BREACH OF CONTRACT [if there is a contract] 114 Plaintiff adopts, re-alleges and re-avers the paragraphs contained in the sectionAllegations Common to All Counts and Incorporated Therein as if and as though fully set forth herein. 115 Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract which provided insurance over the Plaintiff's property at 521 SW 70th Terrace, Pembroke Pines, FL 33023, in Broward County, Florida, Policy Numbers SPIH0256678-02. Plaintiff has attached a copy of the policy (Exhibit A) to show coverages for the term December 28, 2014 to December 28, 2015. Defendant agreed to provide such coverages - on the date or dates of processing indicated on the Declaration of Coverages page. 116 Plaintiff incurred the June 10, 2015 claim as stated above and suffered a loss as described above for the June 10, 2015 loss. 117 Defendant failed to properly adjust the June 10, 2015 claim pursuant to law and has breached the loss payment condition of the policy, resulting in damages to the Plaintiff. Moreover, the breach of the loss payment condition triggered a violation of the loss settlement condition and also a violation by Defendant to properly adjust the claim within 90 days of the casualty, resulting in damages in the amount in controversy alleged above to Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages in the above amounts or as the proofs may show against Defendant, together with Attorneys fees and costs, pursuant to Statute, and such other relief as this Court deems meet and proper or equitable. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for those issues that are so triable against Defendant pursuant to Florida law. Respectfully Submitted,BARNARD LAW OFFICES LP 9655 So. Dixie Highway, Suite 200 Miami, FL. 33156 305-665-0000/ fax 305-669-9666 /s/ Andrew C. Barnard BY: ANDREW C. BARNARD, Esq Fl Bar No 281697 /T\BLO(S)\Non-Citizens Files\Flores, Luz Del Carmen\PLEADINGS\Complaint, Answer, Reply\l complaint.wpdAaa macneill qroup. ine cings: 3 9 ¢ ma cneillg rou p 1300 sawgrass corporate parkway telephone 954.331.4800 infoSmacneiligroup.com a sauw nen foeus wed ones swite 300 toll free 800.432.3072 wwwemacneiligroup.com \ i i y 7 : suntise florida 33323-2804 facsimle 954.331.4848 June 18, 2015 | hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct certified copy of the policy you requested for LUZ DEL CARMEN FLORES Policy NumberSPIH0256678-02. Print Name: lona Hoffman Title: SafePoint Team Lead MacNeill Group Inc. State of Florida County of Broward With respect to the above: 18 day of June 2015, by Mari Jones, the information contained within this document is accurate and true. EXHIBIT A eta» BS0000 :Puz ZO -ueYy €L OL N10 SIS €L OL OG JIS €L OL v2 IS €L Ob v6 EZ OIS €L Ob OZ €Z DIS +6 70 96 #0 OH OL 20 SS91-Ld-dlO €L Ob €-OH DIS 90 €L OL €-OH OIS :eBeg uoleJej99q ay} YjIM pasojous aie (s)Wa}! BuImojjo} oy, “AINJOsed |eUOJEW SI] Ma|AGJ OSEA|q “(\UeWNDOP MAIAIBAO Aoyjod) abeg suonesejoeq pue Aotjod unoA puy ||M NOA pasojouy “Ajiwie4 yulodayes oy} Bululof 10} NoA yueYyL sJepjoyAalod panje, se9q 0000-Z0-8Z99SZ0OHIdS “4equinNn AoN0d “ssaulsng Ano ayeioaudde any ‘Ayadoud nod aunsul 0} sn Burs. 10} NOA yUBYL *(Woo"ysajowap) ‘ouU] ‘yosjowaq Aq jeuoNndsoxy y pale si julodayes “=mouy no pig abeg saley ZEOL-EZOLE TA ‘SUI OYOIQUIOd 491 WYOL MS Les $3yO14 NAWeVO 140 ZN1 9L06-SPEEE 14 ‘eSUUNS ‘9206-Sb XO Od WOd'sU]JUIOgaJeS' MMM BOURINSUI JUIOGases 7ee SafePoint Insurance Welcome to Safepoint! | would like to personally welcome you as a Safepoint policyholder. We know you have many choices in the Florida marketplace and we appreciate the opportunity to earn your business. Our mission is to provide superior customer service, comprehensive coverage, fast and friendly claims service and to give our policyholders Peace of Mind. Let me give you some additional information about who we are. Safepoint is a Florida licensed insurance company based in Tampa specializing in residential property insurance products.We offer a wide ranging product line to accommodate most of your residential property needs. With over $25 Million in policyholder surplus and a dedicated Florida presence, Safepoint has the financial resources to protect your most important assets. Safepoint has earned a rating of “B” from AM Best, a nationally recognized organization that has been rating insurance carriers since 1906. In addition, Safepoint has also earned an “A Exceptional” financial rating from Demotech, an organization that rates insurance carriers on their financial stability. Our Management Team is comprised of experienced professionals with over 75 years in the insurance industry - more than half spent in the state of Florida. Our knowledge and experience in the Florida insurance market gives us the ability to provide you with the products that you need for a value you can afford. We sincerely appreciate your business and hope to continue to earn your business on every renewal. Your Peace of Mind starts here. Best regards, CLE David Flitman CEO Please contact us or your agent if you have any questions or need more information. www.safepointins.com Customer Service: 877-858-7445 To Report a New Claim: 866-482-5246i __ SafePoint www.SafePointins.com Dear Policyholder: A new federal law requires us, as your residential property insurer, to provide you with a copy of our Privacy Policy. We are glad to have this opportunity to do so and to communicate to you our commitment to guard against inappropriate disclosure of nonpublic personal information. Our Privacy Policy We collect and use information necessary to administer your policy and provide you with efficient customer service. We collect and maintain several types of information needed for these purposes, such as those below: + — Information provided by you on your application for insurance coverage, such as your name, address, telephone number, age of your home, and type of construction. « Information gathered from you as our insured, such as how long you've been our insured, your payment history, what kind of coverage you have, underwriting information and claims information. Limited Disclosure We do not disclose any nonpublic personal information about you or any of our policyholders to anyone except as permitted by law. Protecting Confidentiality When we share nonpublic personal information about you, as permitted by law, we protect that personal information with a confidentiality agreement that obligates the recipient of the information to keep it confidential. SIC PRI 01 14ae SafePoint INSUrFANCE HOMEOWNERS POLICY Safepoint Insurance Company P.O, Box 459076 Sunrise, FL 33345-9076 Claims: 1-866-482-5246 Customer Service: 1-877-858-7445 YOUR HOMEOWNERS POLICY DOES NOT PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR DAMAGE TO YOUR PROPERTY CAUSED BY FLOOD. YOUR AGENT CAN HELP YOU PROCURE A SEPARATE FLOOD POLICY THROUGH THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. SIC HOJ 12 13This Policy Jacket with the Policy Form, Declarations Page, and Endorsements, if any, issued to form a part thereof, completes the policy as numbered on the Declarations Page. POLICY PROVISION: All premiums for this insurance shall be computed in accordance with Safepoint Insurance Company’s rules, forms, rating plans, premiums and minimum premiums applicable to the insurance afforded herein which are in effect at the inception of the insurance and, each anniversary thereof, including the date of interim changes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Safepoint Insurance Company has caused this instrument to be signed by its President. Brag? CEL LLG David Flitman President, Safepoint Insurance Company SIC HOJ 12 13a Important Phone Numbers: Safe Po i n t Your Agent: (754) 263-2160 Customer Service: (877) 858-7445, Insurance Claims Reporting: (866) 482-5246 www.SafePointins.com PO Box 45-9076, Sunrise, FL 33345-9076 POLICY NUMBER: SPIH0256678-02-0000 Previous Policy Number: FRJH6105586. HOMEOWNERS HO-3 POLICY DECLARATIONS Renewal Policy Effective Date: 12/28/2014 12:01 AM Policy Expiration Date: 12/28/2015 12:01 AM Insured Name and Mailing Address: Oley Exniation Date eee YOUR SAFEPOINT AGENT IS: LUZ DEL CARMEN FLORES. David Treusch 521 SW 70th Ter All American Insurance Consultants, Inc. Pembroke Pines, FL 33023-1032 4120 Davie Road Ext. Ste # 304 Hollywood, FL 33024 (754) 263-2160 Insured location covered by this policy: 521 SW 70TH TER PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33023-1032 County: BROWARD TOTAL ANNUAL POLICY PREMIUM $3,763.57 The Hurricane portion of the Premium is: $1,638.00 The Non-Hurricane portion of the Premium is: $2,125.57. COVERAGE IS PROVIDED WHERE A PREMIUM OR LIMIT OF LIABILITY IS SHOWN FOR THE COVERAGE SECTION I - PROPERTY COVERAGES LIMIT PREMIUM Coverage - A - (Dwelling) $268,000 $3,799 Coverage - B - (Other Structure) $5,360 ~$82 Coverage - C - (Personal Property) $67,000 -$134 Coverage - D - (Loss Of Use) $26,800 INCLUDED SECTION | - DEDUCTIBLES Incase of a loss, we only cover that part of the loss over the deductible stated: All Other Perils Deductible - $2,500 Sinkhole Deductible - $26,800 (10% of Coverage A) Hurricane Deductible - $5,360 (2% of Coverage A) SECTION Il - LIABILITY COVERAGES Coverage - E - (Personal Liability) $100,000 $35 Coverage - F - (Medical Payments) $2,000 INCLUDED CREDITS AND SURCHARGES Age of Home Surcharge Included Coverage B Percentage Credit Included Coverage C Percentage Credit Included Windstorm Loss Mitigation Credit Included Deductible Credit Included Print Date 10/29/2014 Page 1 of 3 SIC VHODEC2 01 14 Ren: 02, End: 0000ae SafePoint insurance www.SafePointins.com PO Box 45-9076, Sunrise, FL 33345-9076 POLICY NUMBER: SPIH0256678-02-0000 Previous Policy Number: FRJH6105586 Important Phone Numbers: Your Agent: (754) 263-2160 Customer Service: (877) 858-7445 Claims Reporting: (866) 482-5246 POLICY FEES $111.57 Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund Fee $2.00 Managing General Agency Fee $25.00 Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund Assessment $47.80 Citizens Property Insurance Corporation 2005 Emergency Assessment $36.77 OPTIONAL COVERAGES PREMIUM Limit $34.00 SIC 23 94 Sinkhole Loss Coverage $34.00 Premium Change Due to Rate Change $0.00 Premium Change Due to Coverage Change $0.00 Premium Change Due to Change in Fees $0.00 Policy Forms and Endorsements: SIC HO-3 10 13 OC SIC HO-3 10 13 OIR-B1-1655 02 10 HO 04 96 04 91 SIC 23 70 10 13 SIC 23 94 10 13 SIC 24 10 13 SIC DO 10 13 SIC OLN 10 13 Rating Information: Construction: Masonry Automatic Sprinklers: None Year Built: 1964 Opening Protection: None Occupied By: Owner Roof Shape: Gable Usage Type: Primary BCEG Grade: 99 Territory: 037 Protection Class: 01 Exclude Wind Coverage: No Burglar Alarm: None Fire Alarm: None FIRST MORTGAGEE Loan# 0047835079 WELLS FARGO BANK NA 512 ISAOA PO BOX 7512 SPRINGFIELD, OH 45501-7512 Authorized Countersignature: 7 arate: £75 Hela Print Date 10/29/2014 Page 2 of 3 SIC VHODEC2 01 14 Ren: 02, End: 0000ae Important Phone Numbers: Sa fe p oO i n t Your Agent: (754) 263-2160 Customer Service: (877) 858-7445 Insurance Claims Reporting: (866) 482-5246 www.SafePointins.com PO Box 45-9076, Sunrise, FL 33345-9076 POLICY NUMBER: SPIH0256678-02-0000 Previous Policy Number: FRJH6105586 NOTICES THIS POLICY CONTAINS A SEPARATE DEDUCTIBLE FOR HURRICANE LOSSES, WHICH MAY RESULT IN HIGH OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES TO YOU. ORDINANCE OR LAW COVERAGE IS AN IMPORTANT COVERAGE THAT YOU MAY WISH TO PURCHASE. YOU MAY ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER THE PURCHASE OF FLOOD INSURANCE FROM THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. WITHOUT THIS COVERAGE, YOU MAY HAVE UNCOVERED LOSSES. PLEASE DISCUSS THESE COVERAGES WITH YOUR INSURANCE AGENT. THIS POLICY CONTAINS A SEPARATE DEDUCTIBLE FOR SINKHOLE LOSSES, WHICH MAY RESULT IN HIGH OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES TO YOU. You may reduce your policy premium by taking advantage of premium credits for shutter, housing features and other mitigation (loss prevention) devices. Contact your insurance agent to request information that may allow you to receive these discounts. Your Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule adjustment is 0.00%The adjustment applies only to the wind portion of the premium and can range from a surcharge of 1.9% to a credit of 13.2% Property Coverage limit may increase at renewal due to an inflation factor determined by MSB Index of construction costs to maintain insurance to the approximate replacement cost of your home. Print Date 10/29/2014 Page 3 of 3 SIC VHODEC2 01 14 Ren: 02, End: 0000Checklist of Coverage Policy Type: Homeowner's (Indicate: Homeowner's, Condominium Unit Owner's, Tenant's, Dwelling, or Mobile Home Owner's) The following checklist is for informational purposes only. Florida law prohibits this checklist from changing any of the provisions of the insurance contract which is the subject of this checklist. Any endorsement regarding changes in types of coverage, exclusions, limitations, reductions, deductibles, coinsurance, renewal provisions, cancellation provisions, surcharges, or credits will be sent separately. Reviewing this checklist together with your policy can help you gain a better understanding of your policy's actual coverages and limitations, and may even generate questions. By addressing any questions now, you will be more prepared later in the event of a claim. Experience has shown that many questions tend to arise regarding the coverage of attached or detached screened pool enclosures, screened porches, and other types of enclosures. Likewise, if your policy insures a condominium unit, questions may arise regarding the coverage of certain items, such as individual heating and air conditioning units; individual water heaters; floor, wall, and ceiling coverings; built-in cabinets and counter tops; appliances; window treatments and hardware; and electrical fixtures. A clear understanding of your policy's coverages and limitations will reduce confusion that may arise during claims settlement. Please refer to the policy for details and any exceptions to the coverages listed in this checklist. All coverages are subject to the provisions and conditions of the policy and any endorsements. If you have questions regarding your policy, please contact your agent or company. Consumer assistance is available from the Department of Financial Services, Division of Consumer Services’ Helpline at (800) 342-2762 or www.fidfs.com. This form was adopted by the Florida Financial Services Commission. Dwelling Structure Coverage (Place of Residence) Limit of Insurance: $268,000 Loss Settlement Basis: Replacement Cost (i.e. Replacement Cost, Actual Cash Value, Stated Value, etc.) Other Structures Coverage (Detached from Dwelling) Limit of Insurance: $5,360 Loss Settlement Basis: Replacement Cost (i.e. Replacement Cost, Actual Cash Value, Stated Value, etc.) Personal Property Coverage Limit of Insurance: $67,000 Loss Settlement Basis: Actual Cash Value (ie. Replacement Cost, Actual Cash Value, Stated Value, etc.) Deductibles Annual Hurricane: $5,360 All Perils (Other Than Hurricane): $2,500 (New 01/06) OIR-B1-1670 Page 1 of 4Checklist of Coverage (continued) The above Limit of Insurance, Deductibles, and Loss Settlement Basis apply to the following perils insured against: (Items below marked Y (Yes) indicate coverage IS included, those marked N (No) indicate coverage is NOT included) Fire or Lightnin: Hurricane’ Flood (including storm surge) EXCLUDED Windstorm or Hail (other than hurricane) Explosion « Riot or Civil Commotion Aircraft Vehicles ‘Smoke Vandalism or Malicious Mischief Theft Falling Objects Weight of Ice, Snow or Sleet ‘Accidental Discharge or Overflow of Water or Steam ‘Sudden and Accidental Tearing Apart, Cracking, Buming or Bulging Freezing ‘Sudden and Accidental Damage from Artificially Generated Electrical Current Volcanic Eruption Sinkhole ‘Any Other Peril Not Specifically Excluded (dwelling and other structures only) Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Special limits and loss settlement exceptions may apply to certain items. Refer to your policy for details. Loss of Use Coverage Coverage [Limit of insurance I Time Limit (Items below marked Y (Yes) indicate coverage IS included, those marked N (No) indicate coverage is NOT included) Y | Additional Living Expense $26,800 Shortest time required to repair/replace/relocate: Y | Fair Rental Value $26,800 Shortest time required to repairireplace Y | Civil Authority Prohibits Use $26,800 2 weeks maximum (New 01/06) OIR-B1-1670 Page 2 of 4Checklist of Coverage (continued) Property - Additional/Other Coverages Limit of up to ‘Amount of insurance is an additional amount of coverage or is included within (Items below marked Y (Yes) indicate coverage IS $268,000 the policy limit. included, those marked N (No) indicate coverage is 4 — NOT included) Unless Otherwise Included Additional Nott y 5% of the Above Debris Removal arene Y Y | Reasonable Repairs Y Y_ | Property Removed M y_ | Sredit Card, Electronic Fund Transfer Card or Access Device} gso9 y Forgery and Counterfeit Money Y | Loss Assessment $1,000 Y Y [Collapse Y Y | Glass or Safety Glaze Material Y Y | Landiora's Furnishings $2,500 Y Y | Law and Ordinance $67,000 Y N | Grave Markers Y | Mold/Fungi $10,000 Y (New 01/06) OIR-B1-1670 Page 3 of 4Checklist of Covera: Discounts (Items below marked Y (Yes) indicate discount IS applied, those marked N No) indicate discount is NOT applied) N_] Multiple Poli Fire Alarm / Smoke Alarm / Burglar Alarm Sprinkler Windstorm Loss Reduction Bui