On August 27, 2014 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Hines, Debra,
and
Homeowners Choice Prop & Casualty Ins Co,
for Contract and Indebtedness
in the District Court of Broward County.
Preview
Filing # 52361882 E-Filed 02/10/2017 03:30:23 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, OF THE 17™
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. CACE-14-016655 DIV. 02
DEBRA HINES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
a Florida Corporation,
Defendant.
/
DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO THE PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT’S
MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO TESTIMONY OF THE PLAINTIFF
COMES NOW, the Defendant, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves to
limit the testimony of the Plaintiff at trial and states:
1. The Plaintiff asserts that Debra Hines is the best person that can best discuss “how
long she has owned the home”.
2. It is stipulated that she has owned the home since 2007. The purpose of a
stipulation is to avoid the needless presentation of evidence that that is already admitted by a
party.
3. The Plaintiff asserts that Debra Hines is the person that can best discuss “any
changes made to the home”.
4, She testified during her deposition that they have not made any renovations or
changes to the home. See page 13 lines 23 — 24. Any testimony to the contrary would be
prejudicial surprise.
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 2/10/2017 3:30:23 PM.****5. The Plaintiff asserts that Debra Hines is the person that can best discuss “the
damages that are present, where they are located, how long they have been going on, identify the
damages on photographs, if they have gotten worse”.
6. She testified during her deposition that she cannot tell whether the damage has
changed or gotten worse. See page 41 lines 1 — 8. Any testimony to the contrary would be
prejudicial surprise.
7, The Plaintiff can introduce photographs and the best evidence rule would apply to
preclude any testimony from Debra Hines about what the damages are and where they are
located. Her testimony would be cumulative.
8. The Plaintiff asserts that Debra Hines is the person that can best discuss “if any
repairs have been performed and any other impacts these damages have had on the home’s
function or use”. Debra Hines testified during her deposition that she has not made any repairs
so any testimony to the contrary would be surprise. Furthermore, how damage affects the
function or use of the home is irrelevant.
9. The fact that James Hines passed away during the pendency of this claim is
irrelevant and highly prejudicial and has no probative value. See State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v.
Figueroa, Case No. 4D15-2698 [Fla. 4™ DCA, February 8, 2017].
10. The fact that James Hines gave information to the Defendant and its experts
during the claim process in no way warrants the jury to know that he passed away. The only
information that was given was recorded in a statement given the adjuster which has been
supplied and relied upon by the Defendant’s experts. The experts are expected to testify about
statements from James Hines about when the damage occurred but nothing else.
ll. The fact that he was the only named insured is also irrelevant and cannot possiblybe construed to imply that the jury will be confused somehow about why James Hines and not
the Plaintiff Debra Hines is on the policy that would create some sort of prejudice.
12. If the Plaintiff feels it necessary to explain why he is not at trial they can simply
be told he is unavailable.
13. Informing the jury of the passing of James Hines could be used only to garner
sympathy from the jury and no other purpose.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant seeks an Order granting the Defendant’s motion.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
forwarded by electronic mail to: Ryan H. Sherman, Esq. at eserviceSLPA@gmail.com and
Morgan Barfield at Service@corlessbarfield.com on this 10" day of February, 2017.
GROELLE & SALMON, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant
Waterford Plaza
7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway
Suite 800
Tampa, FL 33607
(813) 849-7200 (telephone)
(813) 849-7201 (fax)
gstcourtdoes@ law.com
rschulte@gspalaw.com
Teh T Lebecber
JONATHAN T. HALL, ESQ.
HCP.14211 FBN: 0762601
By:
Document Filed Date
February 10, 2017
Case Filing Date
August 27, 2014
Category
Contract and Indebtedness
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Filing # 52361882 E-Filed 02/10/2017 03:30:23 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, OF THE 17™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. CACE-14-016655 DIV. 02 DEBRA HINES, Plaintiff, vs. HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. a Florida Corporation, Defendant. / DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO THE PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO TESTIMONY OF THE PLAINTIFF COMES NOW, the Defendant, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves to limit the testimony of the Plaintiff at trial and states: 1. The Plaintiff asserts that Debra Hines is the best person that can best discuss “how long she has owned the home”. 2. It is stipulated that she has owned the home since 2007. The purpose of a stipulation is to avoid the needless presentation of evidence that that is already admitted by a party. 3. The Plaintiff asserts that Debra Hines is the person that can best discuss “any changes made to the home”. 4, She testified during her deposition that they have not made any renovations or changes to the home. See page 13 lines 23 — 24. Any testimony to the contrary would be prejudicial surprise. *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 2/10/2017 3:30:23 PM.****5. The Plaintiff asserts that Debra Hines is the person that can best discuss “the damages that are present, where they are located, how long they have been going on, identify the damages on photographs, if they have gotten worse”. 6. She testified during her deposition that she cannot tell whether the damage has changed or gotten worse. See page 41 lines 1 — 8. Any testimony to the contrary would be prejudicial surprise. 7, The Plaintiff can introduce photographs and the best evidence rule would apply to preclude any testimony from Debra Hines about what the damages are and where they are located. Her testimony would be cumulative. 8. The Plaintiff asserts that Debra Hines is the person that can best discuss “if any repairs have been performed and any other impacts these damages have had on the home’s function or use”. Debra Hines testified during her deposition that she has not made any repairs so any testimony to the contrary would be surprise. Furthermore, how damage affects the function or use of the home is irrelevant. 9. The fact that James Hines passed away during the pendency of this claim is irrelevant and highly prejudicial and has no probative value. See State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Figueroa, Case No. 4D15-2698 [Fla. 4™ DCA, February 8, 2017]. 10. The fact that James Hines gave information to the Defendant and its experts during the claim process in no way warrants the jury to know that he passed away. The only information that was given was recorded in a statement given the adjuster which has been supplied and relied upon by the Defendant’s experts. The experts are expected to testify about statements from James Hines about when the damage occurred but nothing else. ll. The fact that he was the only named insured is also irrelevant and cannot possiblybe construed to imply that the jury will be confused somehow about why James Hines and not the Plaintiff Debra Hines is on the policy that would create some sort of prejudice. 12. If the Plaintiff feels it necessary to explain why he is not at trial they can simply be told he is unavailable. 13. Informing the jury of the passing of James Hines could be used only to garner sympathy from the jury and no other purpose. WHEREFORE, the Defendant seeks an Order granting the Defendant’s motion. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been forwarded by electronic mail to: Ryan H. Sherman, Esq. at eserviceSLPA@gmail.com and Morgan Barfield at Service@corlessbarfield.com on this 10" day of February, 2017. GROELLE & SALMON, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant Waterford Plaza 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33607 (813) 849-7200 (telephone) (813) 849-7201 (fax) gstcourtdoes@ law.com rschulte@gspalaw.com Teh T Lebecber JONATHAN T. HALL, ESQ. HCP.14211 FBN: 0762601 By: