On August 27, 2014 a
Motion,Ex Parte
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 # 50072389 E-Filed 12/14/2016 07:11:49 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
DEBRA HINES
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.: CACE-14-016655
vs. DIVISION: 02
HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
a Florida Corporation
Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT ITS
EXPERTS ARE PRESUMED TO BE CORRECT
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned counsel and file this Motion in
Limine seeking to prevent argument from Defendant that its experts opinions are presumed to be
correct and in support thereof states the following:
1. This is a lawsuit based upon a breach of an insurance policy providing coverage
for a sinkhole loss.
2. Defendant retained an engineering firm, SDII Global, to investigate the subject
residence. That firm opined that sinkhole activity was not a cause of the distress
to the property.
3. Plaintiff challenged the denial of coverage through competing expert testimony
and testing. This matter is now set for trial beginning February 2017.
4. It is anticipated that Defendant may present to the jury that by Statute its experts
opinions were presumed to be correct and this should shield them from a finding
of breach. This is an argument commonly presented by carriers in these types of
cases.
** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 12/14/2016 7:11:48 PM.****5. According to Universal Insurance v. Warfel, 82 So.3d 47 (Fla. 2012) and Johnson
v. Omega, (Fla. 2016) the presumption outlined in Fl. Stat. 627.7073 is a bubble
bursting presumption which dissipates once evidence contradicting the original
engineers comes into the case and shall have not further effect on the litigation
whatsoever.
6. Plaintiffs have presented several contrary expert engineering reports with
additional testing to the Defendant before and after the lawsuit was filed.
7. It is clear that Plaintiff has presented the necessary evidence and this presumption
has been rebutted and should not be presented to the jury.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order
preventing Defendant from arguing to the jury that its experts opinions are presumed to
be correct and any other relief the Court deems necessary.CERTIFICIATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been
electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal and served
via Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Electronic Mail to: Ryan Sherman, Esq.; Co-Counsel for
Plaintiff, Ryanshermanfl@ gmail.com ; Sherman Law, P.A., 4000 Hollywood Blvd,m #265-S,
Hollywood, Florida 33021 and Jonathan T. Hall, Esq., ; Counsel for Defendant,
grobinson@gspalaw.com and gstcourtdocs@gspalaw.com, Groelle & Salmon, PA, 7650
Courtney Campbell Cswy., Ste. 800, Tampa, FL 33067 on this 14th day of December 2016.
4S/ Morgan Barfield
Morgan Barfield, Esquire
Florida Bar Number: 0605761
CORLESS BARFIELD
TRIAL GROUP, LLC
6812 W. Linebaugh Ave.
Tampa, Florida 33625
Telephone: (813) 258-4998
Facsimile: (813) 258-4988
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Document Filed Date
December 14, 2016
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 # 50072389 E-Filed 12/14/2016 07:11:49 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION DEBRA HINES Plaintiff, CASE NO.: CACE-14-016655 vs. DIVISION: 02 HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. a Florida Corporation Defendant. / PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE AS TO DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT ITS EXPERTS ARE PRESUMED TO BE CORRECT COMES NOW, Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned counsel and file this Motion in Limine seeking to prevent argument from Defendant that its experts opinions are presumed to be correct and in support thereof states the following: 1. This is a lawsuit based upon a breach of an insurance policy providing coverage for a sinkhole loss. 2. Defendant retained an engineering firm, SDII Global, to investigate the subject residence. That firm opined that sinkhole activity was not a cause of the distress to the property. 3. Plaintiff challenged the denial of coverage through competing expert testimony and testing. This matter is now set for trial beginning February 2017. 4. It is anticipated that Defendant may present to the jury that by Statute its experts opinions were presumed to be correct and this should shield them from a finding of breach. This is an argument commonly presented by carriers in these types of cases. ** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 12/14/2016 7:11:48 PM.****5. According to Universal Insurance v. Warfel, 82 So.3d 47 (Fla. 2012) and Johnson v. Omega, (Fla. 2016) the presumption outlined in Fl. Stat. 627.7073 is a bubble bursting presumption which dissipates once evidence contradicting the original engineers comes into the case and shall have not further effect on the litigation whatsoever. 6. Plaintiffs have presented several contrary expert engineering reports with additional testing to the Defendant before and after the lawsuit was filed. 7. It is clear that Plaintiff has presented the necessary evidence and this presumption has been rebutted and should not be presented to the jury. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order preventing Defendant from arguing to the jury that its experts opinions are presumed to be correct and any other relief the Court deems necessary.CERTIFICIATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal and served via Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Electronic Mail to: Ryan Sherman, Esq.; Co-Counsel for Plaintiff, Ryanshermanfl@ gmail.com ; Sherman Law, P.A., 4000 Hollywood Blvd,m #265-S, Hollywood, Florida 33021 and Jonathan T. Hall, Esq., ; Counsel for Defendant, grobinson@gspalaw.com and gstcourtdocs@gspalaw.com, Groelle & Salmon, PA, 7650 Courtney Campbell Cswy., Ste. 800, Tampa, FL 33067 on this 14th day of December 2016. 4S/ Morgan Barfield Morgan Barfield, Esquire Florida Bar Number: 0605761 CORLESS BARFIELD TRIAL GROUP, LLC 6812 W. Linebaugh Ave. Tampa, Florida 33625 Telephone: (813) 258-4998 Facsimile: (813) 258-4988 Attorneys for Plaintiff