Preview
Filing # 36563724 E-Filed 01/14/2016 11:57:49 AM
142 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th
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.,
Defendant.
/
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
AS TO DESTRUCTIVE OR INTRUSIVE TESTING BY PLAINTIFFS
COMES NOW the Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through their undersigned counsel, by and through its
undersigned counsel and pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c) and hereby files this Motion for
Protective Order Precluding Destructive Testing and in support thereof states:
1. On or about August 27, 2014 the Plaintiffs filed the subject Complaint in the
above-styled matter.
2. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges a breach of a policy of insurance with respect to a
claim for sinkhole loss.
3. Plaintiffs have submitted the opinion of Ahmed Said, P.E. of Sinkhole Geotech,
Inc. to support a proposition that sinkhole activity is present at the property at issue.
4. On September 9, 2015, Defendant send correspondence to the Plaintiff demanding
the opportunity to be present for any and all destructive testing performed in connection with this
matter. See Exh
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 1/14/2016 11:57:49 AM.****5. Defendant filed a Request for Entry Upon Land pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350
on November 23, 2015. See Exhibit B.
6. Plaintiff objected, untimely, to the Defendant’s Request for Entry Upon Land on
December 30, 2015. See Exhibit C.
7. Accordingly, Defendant sought leave of the Court to have its experts inspect the
subject property on December 31, 2015. See Exhibit D.
8. Subsequent to the Defendant’s Motion, the Plaintiff agreed to the inspection with
the proviso that no invasive or destructive testing would be performed, with the exception of
hand auger borings. Moreover, Plaintiff objected “especially” to “spts'.” See Exhibit E,
9. On January 7, 2016 the Court entered an Agreed Order which establishes the
parameters of the inspection Defendant’s experts would be permitted to perform. See Exhibit F.
10. Upon Defendant's information and belief, Plaintiff has not conducted any
destructive or intrusive testing at Plaintiff's property as of the time of the filing of this Motion.
However, Defendant anticipates that Plaintiff may perform destructive or invasive testing at
some point during the pendency of this litigation in an effort to bolster the opinions of their
expert(s) and/or the allegations contained within their Complaint, including Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) borings.
11. Defendant hereby moves for a Protective Order which places the same restrictions
upon the Plaintiff as those upon the Defendant, namely precluding Plaintiff from conducting any
destructive or intrusive testing upon the subject property, with the exception of hand auger
borings, to the extent such testing is intended to be used to support the allegations of the
Plaintiffs Complaint in the pending lawsuit.
' “SPT” is an acronym for Standard Penetration Test boring, an invasive and destructive subsurface test commonly
performed to diagnose subsurface conditions, including sinkhole activity.12. Plaintiffs action and allegations in this lawsuit have placed at issue the
condition of the property and the soils beneath.
13. The very nature of Plaintiffs’ claim makes any investigations or testing of the
property material to the issues in this case and the information gained as a result, potentially
admissible.
14, Many of the testing methodologies utilized by experts in the field(s) of geology
and/or engineering are inherently destructive and intrusive testing, the results of which cannot be
verified or reproduced once the testing has been performed.
15. In consideration of the foregoing, justice requires that discovery obtained through
destructive or intrusive testing by Plaintiffs or their representatives not be had.
16. The granting of an order precluding destructive or intrusive testing is consistent
with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, permitted under the Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c),
necessary to prevent spoliation of evidence, and within the sound discretion of this Court.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, FLORIDA FARM BUREAU, respectfully requests that this
honorable Court enter a Protective Order precluding destructive or invasive testing of the subject
property and for such further relief as the Court deems appropriate.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 at eserviceSLPA@gmail.com, and
Morgan Barfield at Mbarfield@CorlessBarfield.com on this 14° day of January, 2016.
By:
HCP.14211
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)
Tita 1. Letete>
ROBERT T. SCHULTE, ESQ.
FBN: 888197 a 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway | Suite 800
GROKLLE Tampa, FL 33607
&
M x P: 813-849-7200
SALM LON F; 813-849-7201
September 18, 2015
Via Electronic Mail
Ryan Sherman, Esquire
Sherman Law, P.A.
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Ste 265-S
Hollywood, FL 33021
RE: Insured: Debra Hines
Claim No.: 821089
Policy No: 1HPC1540319
Date of Loss: 2/20/2012
Our File No.:_ HCP.14211-CL
Dear Mr. Sherman:
As you know, this firm represents Homeowners Choice with respect to litigation concerning to
the above referenced claim under policy 1HPC1540319 for an alleged “sinkhole loss” occurring
on or about February 20, 2012.
Many of the testing methodologies utilized by experts in the field(s) of geology and/or
engineering are inherently destructive testing, the results of which cannot _be verified _or
reproduced once the testing has been performed. Therefore, Homeowners Choice is demanding
it be afforded the opportunity to be present for any and all destructive testing performed.
Homeowners Choice will be prejudiced if it is foreclosed from observing any additional testing.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
None of the foregoing is to be interpreted as a concession by Homeowners Choice that
geological, geotechnical, or geophysical testing performed at the present date is relevant to show
the cause of the February 20, 2012 loss or the conditions of the subject property during the
relevant policy period. This correspondence is a good faith effort to preserve evidence.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
GROELLE & SALMON, P.A.
Teh T Ldbecber
Robert T. Schulte
For the Firm
RTS/tms
OC.spoliation.091715
EXHIBIT PM
WEST PALM BEACH | TAMPA | Wy A BIAMI | ORLANDO | ST, PETERSBURG14211
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE-14-016655 DIV. 02
DEBRA HINES,
vs.
Plaintiff,
HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.
/
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND
COMES NOW, the Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through its undersigned attorneys, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.350, and requests Plaintiff, DEBRA HINES, permit entry upon the land designated below for the
purpose of inspection and measuring, surveying, photographing, testing or sampling the property and
any structures thereon, in conjunction with the above-referenced cause, and within the scope of the
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b).
lL.
2.
we
Property designated for inspection: 3816 S. Lake Terrace, Miramar, FL 33023.
Inspection requested: Defendant requests the Plaintiff permit entry upon the land, property,
and residence identified above for the purposes of inspection and measuring, surveying,
photographing, testing or sampling the property and any structures thereon.
Time, place and manner of inspection: Defendant requires access to the interior and
exterior of the residence and any structures on the property identified above for the purposes
of inspection and testing of the premises and any structures on the property to be conducted
by Defendant's consulting experts. Defendant requests Plaintiffs permit inspection of the
subject property as described above at a mutually convenient date and time for all parties and
persons involved to be coordinated by counsel for the respective parties.
EXHIBIT
1 @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 at eserviceSLPA@gmail.com, on this 23
day of November, 2015.
By:
HCI.14211
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)
gstcourtdocs@egspalaw.com
rschulte@gspalaw.com
Telooct 7, Detacte
ROBERT T. SCHULTE, ESQ.
FBN:; 88819Robert Schulte
From: Julio Martinez
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 4:57 PM
To: Robert Schulte
Ce: Georgina Robinson
Subject: Re: Insured: Debra Hines - Claim No: 821089 - File No:HCP.14211.CL
TimeMattersID: MBC4CA59918DD131
TM Matter No: 14211
TM Matter Reference: Hines, Debra V. Homeowners Choice
Robert,
Pardon the delay but my objection was supposed to go out - it will be filed formally tomorrow. It
appears we had a clerical issue on my end.
The basis for our objection is that your client has already been provided numerous opportunities for
inspection including a post litigation inspection that was not objected to.
I'll ask my assistant to work with your office to set our objections for hearing as soon as its filed and
served tomorrow.
Thank you,
Julio
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Robert Schulte wrote:
Mr. Martinez,
| have not received any response or objection to the attached Request for Entry Upon Land. Accordingly, please provide
five proposed dates in January for Defendant's representatives to inspect. The courtesy of a response on or before
January 6, 2016 is requested.
Kind Regards,
Robert Schulte | Attorney at Law
GROELLE & SALMON, P.A.
7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway
Suite 800
Tampa, FL 33607
T: 813.849.7200 | F: 813.849.7201 EXHIBIT
orerschulte@gspalaw.com | www.gspalaw.com
Notice: Delivery of a court filing or discovery document to this email address will not be considered as served, and that any court filing or electronic
discovery needs to be directed to gstcourtdocs@agspalaw.com.
1 attempt to respond to all e-mail communications within the business day. If you have an urgent communication and/or if you have not received a
response to your e-mail, please contact me by telephone.
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is
privileged. The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the party or parties to whom this email is addressed.
This communication and all attachments are intended to be and to remain confidential, and may be subject to applicable attorney - client and or
work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please
immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message and its attachments. Do not deliver, distribute, or copy this message and or
any attachments if you are not the intended recipient. Do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in
this communication or any attachments. Although this E-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might
affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no
responsibility is accepted by Groelle and Salmon P.A.
Best Regards,
Julio Martinez, Esq.
Sherman Law PA
4000 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 265-S
Hollywood, FL 33021
Tel: 954-894-8000
Fax: 305-397-1725
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named
above. This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication and, as such, is privileged and confidential. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original
message.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6176 / Virus Database: 4489/11273 - Release Date: 12/28/1514211 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th
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.,
Defendant.
/
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ENTRY UPON LAND
COMES NOW, the Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY (“HOMEOWNERS CHOICE”), by and through its undersigned
attorneys, and hereby files its Motion to Compel Entry Upon Land seeking access to the insured
property for the purpose of allowing its experts to conduct a site inspection, pursuant to Fla. R.
Civ. P. 1.350 and in support thereof states as follows:
1. Plaintiff, DEBRA HINES, filed a Complaint against Defendant,
HOMEOWNERS CHOICE, a Breach of Contract action arising from an insurance claim for
sinkhole loss made by Plaintiff to property owned by Plaintiff and insured by Defendant.
2. On Noveinber 20, 2015, Defendant filed Defendant’s Request for Entry Upon
Land requesting that the Plaintiff permit entry upon the land for the purpose of allowing
Defendant’s retained experts to inspect the property that is the subject of the lawsuit. See Exhibit
A.
EXHIBIT
1 Oo3. In this Request for Entry Upon Land, Defendant requested that the inspection of
the property be performed at a mutually convenient date and time for all persons involved. See
Exhibit A.
4. Defendant received no timely objection or response, and on December 30, 2015
requested Plaintiff's counsel provide five (5) proposed dates for the inspection. In response,
Plaintiff advised that Plaintiff did object to the Request and that a formal objection is
forthcoming. See Exhibit B.
5. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure establish the means by which a party may
obtain entry upon the land of another party for purposes of discovery, Rule 1.350(a) Fla. R. Civ.
P. states in pertinent part:
“Any party may request any other party [...] to permit entry upon designated land
or other property in the possession or control of the party upon whom the request is
served for the purpose of inspection and measuring, surveying, photographing,
testing, or sampling the property or any designated object or operation on it within the
scope of rule 1.280(b).”
(Emphasis Added)
6. Rule 1.350(b) Fla. R. Civ. P.: states in pertinent part:
“Without leave of court the reguest may be served on the plaintiff after
commencement of the action and on any other party with or after service of the
process and initial pleading on that party. The request shall set forth the items to
be inspected, either by individual item or category, and describe each item and
category with reasonable particularity. The reguest shall specify a reasonable
time, place, and manner of making the inspection or performing the related acts.
The party to whom the request is directed shall serve a written response within 30
days after service of the request, except that a defendant may serve a response
within 45 days after service of the process and initial pleading on that defendant.
The court may allow a shorter or longer time. For each item or category the
response shall state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as
requested unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for the
objection shall be stated. If an objection is made to part of an item or category, the
part shall be specified. [...] The party submitting the request may move for an
order under rule 1.380 concerning any objection, failure to respond to the
request, or any part of it, or failure to permit the inspection as requested.”(Emphasis Added)
7. Rule 1.380(a)(2) Fla. R. Civ. P. states in pertinent part:
“Motion. [...] if a party in response to a request for inspection submitted
under rule 1.350 fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or
fails to permit inspection as requested [...] the discovering party may move for an
[...] order compelling inspection.”
(Emphasis Added)
8. Requests for Entry Upon Land to perform inspections, such as the instant request,
are standard fare in all claims concerning insurance losses to buildings, whether the alleged
cause of the loss is fire, water, windstorm, or settlement due to sinkhole activity.
9. The Rules of Civil Procedure regarding requests to parties for documents, things,
or entry on land authorizes discovery relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. Baron,
Melnick & Powell, P.A. v. Costa, 478 So. 2d 492 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1985).
10. The inspection at the Plaintiff's property is clearly relevant to the subject matter
of the pending action because the central issue for resolution by the finder of fact is whether the
Plaintiffs property suffered a sinkhole loss covered under the insurance policy.
1]. The inspection is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
12. Unlike the Defendant, the Plaintiff has virtually unlimited access to the property
which is the subject of this lawsuit for their consulting and trial experts.
13. Allowing the inspection of Plaintiffs property will result in no prejudice to the
Plaintiffs however, prohibiting the inspection will result in substantial prejudice to the defense.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE, respectfully requests that
this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiff to allow HOMEOWNERS CHOICEentry upon the subject property for a inspection to be performed by its experts prior to trial, and
for all further or alternative relief this Court deems just and proper.
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 at eserviceSLPA@gmail.com, and
Morgan Barfield at Mbarfield@CorlessBarfield.com on this 31% day of December, 2015.
HCP.14211
By:
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)
Teo 7 Ldbedber
ROBERT T. SCHULTE, ESQ.
FBN: 8881914211 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th
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.,
Defendant.
/
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND
COMES NOW, the Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through its undersigned attorneys, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.350, and requests Plaintiff, DEBRA HINES, permit entry upon the land designated below for the
purpose of inspection and measuring, surveying, photographing, testing or sampling the property and
any structures thereon, in conjunction with the above-referenced cause, and within the scope of the
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b).
L.
2.
w
Property designated for inspection: 3816 S. Lake Terrace, Miramar, FL 33023.
Inspection requested: Defendant requests the Plaintiff permit entry upon the land, property,
and residence identified above for the purposes of inspection and measuring, surveying,
photographing, testing or sampling the property and any structures thereon,
Time, place and manner of inspection: Defendant requires access to the interior and
exterior of the residence and any structures on the property identified above for the purposes
of inspection and testing of the premises and any structures on the property to be conducted
by Defendant's consulting experts. Defendant requests Plaintiffs permit inspection of the
subject property as described above at a mutually convenient date and time for all parties and
persons involved to be coordinated by counsel for the respective parties.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 at eserviceSLPA@gmail.com, on this 23
day of November, 2015.
By:
HCI.14211
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)
gstcourtdocs(@espalaw.com
rschulte@gspalaw.com
Lilt Z Dubecber
ROBERT T. SCHULTE, ESQ.
FBN: 88819Robert Schulte
From: Julio Martinez
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 4:57 PM
To: Robert Schulte
Ce: Georgina Robinson
Subject: Re: Insured: Debra Hines - Claim No: 821089 - File No:HCP.14211.CL
TimeMattersID: MBC4CAS9918DD131
TM Matter No: 14211
TM Matter Reference: Hines, Debra V. Homeowners Choice
Robert,
Pardon the delay but my objection was supposed to go out - it will be filed formally tomorrow. It
appears we had a clerical issue on my end.
The basis for our objection is that your client has already been provided numerous opportunities for
inspection including a post litigation inspection that was not objected to.
T'll ask my assistant to work with your office to set our objections for hearing as soon as its filed and
served tomorrow.
Thank you,
Julio
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Robert Schulte wrote:
Mr. Martinez,
| have not received any response or objection to the attached Request for Entry Upon Land. Accordingly, please provide
five proposed dates in January for Defendant's representatives to inspect. The courtesy of a response on or before
January 6, 2016 is requested.
Kind Regards,
Robert Schulte | Attorney at Law
GROELLE & SALMON, P.A.
7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway
Suite 800
Tampa, FL 33607
T: 813.849.7200 | F: 813.849.7201
gare
EXHIBITrschulte@gspalaw.com | www.gspalaw.com
Notice: Delivery of « court filing or discovery document to this email address will not be considered as served, and that any court filing or electronic
discovery needs to be directed to astcourtdocs@gspalow.com.
! attempt ta respond to all e-mail communications within the business day. If you hove an urgent communication and/or if you have nat received o
response to your e-mail, please contact me by telephone.
PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is
privileged. The contents of this e-mail message ond any attachments are intended solely for the party or parties to whom this email is addressed.
This communication and all attachments are intended to be and to remain confidential, and may be subject to applicable attorney - client and or
work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please
immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail ond delete this message and its attachments. Do not deliver, distribute, or copy this message and or
any attachments if you ore not the intended recipient. Do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in
this communication or any attachments. Although this E-mail ond any attachments are believed to be free of any virus ar other defect that might
affect any computer system into which it is received ond opened, it is the responsiblity of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no
responsibility is accepted by Groelle and Salmon P.A.
Best Regards,
Julio Martinez, Esq.
Sherman Law PA
4000 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 265-S
Hollywood, FL 33021
Tel: 954-894-8000
Fax: 305-397-1725
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named
above. This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication and, as such, is privileged and confidential. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is,
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original
message.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6176 / Virus Database: 4489/11273 - Release Date: 12/28/15Robert Schulte
— _ — — _
From: Morgan Barfield
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 5:25 PM
To: Jonathan Hall
Cc: Julio Martinez; Robert Schulte; Ryan Sherman; Brenda minors
Subject: Re: Hines v. HOC - Inspection
Jon thats ok if its only hand augers and nothing further, especially spts. So you guys think this is an organic
issue huh?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 4, 2016, at 5:22 PM, Jonathan Hall wrote:
Good afternoon Mr Martinez. Sorry for the delay. I thought Mr. Schulte responded to you and
he thought I had. Our expert wants to do some hand auger borings. Please confirm your
consent.
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 31, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Julio Martinez wrote:
Gentlemen,
We're in receipt of your motion. Unfortunately we had a mixup on our end
filing the timely objection. Thus, will will not need to proceed with a
hearing on your motion. Please ask your staff to coordinate the site
inspection with Brenda Minors (cc'ed).
That said, please do remind me who will be inspecting and the scope
thereof. If memory serves, there was no destructive testing involvement. If
so, we may in fact need to have Judge Bowman consider the issue. Thank
you, have a save and happy new year.
Best Regards,
Julio Martinez, Esq.
Sherman Law PA
4000 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 265-S
Hollywood, FL 33021
Tel: 954-894-8000
Fax: 305-397-1725
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential
use of the recipient(s) named above. This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client
communication and, as such, is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that you have received thi hat any review, dissemination,
EXHIBIT
coedistribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6176 / Virus Database: 4489/11321 - Release Date: 01/04/16Ber. (HOU
THES
14211 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th
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.,
Defendant.
/
AGREED ORDER AS TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ENTRY UPON LAND
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Entry
Upon Land, and the Court having considered the Motion, the agreement of the parties, and being
otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Request for Entry Upon Land is hereby
GRANTED as follows:
1, The parties are to confer and to agree on a mutually determined date for
Defendant’s representatives to conduct an inspection of the interior and exterior
of the residence and any structures which are the subject of this litigation.
nN
Defendant’s representatives may not conduct any invasive or destructive testing at
the property, with the exception of hand auger borings.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Broward County, Aigtita- thi:
HN © Soman
» 2016.
Circuit Court Judge
Copies furnished to:
Morgan Barfield, Esq.,
Ryan Sherman, Esq.
Robert T. Schulte, Esq.
EXHIBIT
‘tabbles*
Preview
Filing # 36563724 E-Filed 01/14/2016 11:57:49 AM 142 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th 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., Defendant. / DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO DESTRUCTIVE OR INTRUSIVE TESTING BY PLAINTIFFS COMES NOW the Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through their undersigned counsel, by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c) and hereby files this Motion for Protective Order Precluding Destructive Testing and in support thereof states: 1. On or about August 27, 2014 the Plaintiffs filed the subject Complaint in the above-styled matter. 2. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges a breach of a policy of insurance with respect to a claim for sinkhole loss. 3. Plaintiffs have submitted the opinion of Ahmed Said, P.E. of Sinkhole Geotech, Inc. to support a proposition that sinkhole activity is present at the property at issue. 4. On September 9, 2015, Defendant send correspondence to the Plaintiff demanding the opportunity to be present for any and all destructive testing performed in connection with this matter. See Exh *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 1/14/2016 11:57:49 AM.****5. Defendant filed a Request for Entry Upon Land pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350 on November 23, 2015. See Exhibit B. 6. Plaintiff objected, untimely, to the Defendant’s Request for Entry Upon Land on December 30, 2015. See Exhibit C. 7. Accordingly, Defendant sought leave of the Court to have its experts inspect the subject property on December 31, 2015. See Exhibit D. 8. Subsequent to the Defendant’s Motion, the Plaintiff agreed to the inspection with the proviso that no invasive or destructive testing would be performed, with the exception of hand auger borings. Moreover, Plaintiff objected “especially” to “spts'.” See Exhibit E, 9. On January 7, 2016 the Court entered an Agreed Order which establishes the parameters of the inspection Defendant’s experts would be permitted to perform. See Exhibit F. 10. Upon Defendant's information and belief, Plaintiff has not conducted any destructive or intrusive testing at Plaintiff's property as of the time of the filing of this Motion. However, Defendant anticipates that Plaintiff may perform destructive or invasive testing at some point during the pendency of this litigation in an effort to bolster the opinions of their expert(s) and/or the allegations contained within their Complaint, including Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings. 11. Defendant hereby moves for a Protective Order which places the same restrictions upon the Plaintiff as those upon the Defendant, namely precluding Plaintiff from conducting any destructive or intrusive testing upon the subject property, with the exception of hand auger borings, to the extent such testing is intended to be used to support the allegations of the Plaintiffs Complaint in the pending lawsuit. ' “SPT” is an acronym for Standard Penetration Test boring, an invasive and destructive subsurface test commonly performed to diagnose subsurface conditions, including sinkhole activity.12. Plaintiffs action and allegations in this lawsuit have placed at issue the condition of the property and the soils beneath. 13. The very nature of Plaintiffs’ claim makes any investigations or testing of the property material to the issues in this case and the information gained as a result, potentially admissible. 14, Many of the testing methodologies utilized by experts in the field(s) of geology and/or engineering are inherently destructive and intrusive testing, the results of which cannot be verified or reproduced once the testing has been performed. 15. In consideration of the foregoing, justice requires that discovery obtained through destructive or intrusive testing by Plaintiffs or their representatives not be had. 16. The granting of an order precluding destructive or intrusive testing is consistent with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, permitted under the Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c), necessary to prevent spoliation of evidence, and within the sound discretion of this Court. WHEREFORE, Defendant, FLORIDA FARM BUREAU, respectfully requests that this honorable Court enter a Protective Order precluding destructive or invasive testing of the subject property and for such further relief as the Court deems appropriate.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 at eserviceSLPA@gmail.com, and Morgan Barfield at Mbarfield@CorlessBarfield.com on this 14° day of January, 2016. By: HCP.14211 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) Tita 1. Letete> ROBERT T. SCHULTE, ESQ. FBN: 888197 a 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway | Suite 800 GROKLLE Tampa, FL 33607 & M x P: 813-849-7200 SALM LON F; 813-849-7201 September 18, 2015 Via Electronic Mail Ryan Sherman, Esquire Sherman Law, P.A. 4000 Hollywood Blvd., Ste 265-S Hollywood, FL 33021 RE: Insured: Debra Hines Claim No.: 821089 Policy No: 1HPC1540319 Date of Loss: 2/20/2012 Our File No.:_ HCP.14211-CL Dear Mr. Sherman: As you know, this firm represents Homeowners Choice with respect to litigation concerning to the above referenced claim under policy 1HPC1540319 for an alleged “sinkhole loss” occurring on or about February 20, 2012. Many of the testing methodologies utilized by experts in the field(s) of geology and/or engineering are inherently destructive testing, the results of which cannot _be verified _or reproduced once the testing has been performed. Therefore, Homeowners Choice is demanding it be afforded the opportunity to be present for any and all destructive testing performed. Homeowners Choice will be prejudiced if it is foreclosed from observing any additional testing. Please govern yourself accordingly. None of the foregoing is to be interpreted as a concession by Homeowners Choice that geological, geotechnical, or geophysical testing performed at the present date is relevant to show the cause of the February 20, 2012 loss or the conditions of the subject property during the relevant policy period. This correspondence is a good faith effort to preserve evidence. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, GROELLE & SALMON, P.A. Teh T Ldbecber Robert T. Schulte For the Firm RTS/tms OC.spoliation.091715 EXHIBIT PM WEST PALM BEACH | TAMPA | Wy A BIAMI | ORLANDO | ST, PETERSBURG14211 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE-14-016655 DIV. 02 DEBRA HINES, vs. Plaintiff, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Defendant. / DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND COMES NOW, the Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through its undersigned attorneys, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350, and requests Plaintiff, DEBRA HINES, permit entry upon the land designated below for the purpose of inspection and measuring, surveying, photographing, testing or sampling the property and any structures thereon, in conjunction with the above-referenced cause, and within the scope of the Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b). lL. 2. we Property designated for inspection: 3816 S. Lake Terrace, Miramar, FL 33023. Inspection requested: Defendant requests the Plaintiff permit entry upon the land, property, and residence identified above for the purposes of inspection and measuring, surveying, photographing, testing or sampling the property and any structures thereon. Time, place and manner of inspection: Defendant requires access to the interior and exterior of the residence and any structures on the property identified above for the purposes of inspection and testing of the premises and any structures on the property to be conducted by Defendant's consulting experts. Defendant requests Plaintiffs permit inspection of the subject property as described above at a mutually convenient date and time for all parties and persons involved to be coordinated by counsel for the respective parties. EXHIBIT 1 @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 at eserviceSLPA@gmail.com, on this 23 day of November, 2015. By: HCI.14211 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) gstcourtdocs@egspalaw.com rschulte@gspalaw.com Telooct 7, Detacte ROBERT T. SCHULTE, ESQ. FBN:; 88819Robert Schulte From: Julio Martinez Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 4:57 PM To: Robert Schulte Ce: Georgina Robinson Subject: Re: Insured: Debra Hines - Claim No: 821089 - File No:HCP.14211.CL TimeMattersID: MBC4CA59918DD131 TM Matter No: 14211 TM Matter Reference: Hines, Debra V. Homeowners Choice Robert, Pardon the delay but my objection was supposed to go out - it will be filed formally tomorrow. It appears we had a clerical issue on my end. The basis for our objection is that your client has already been provided numerous opportunities for inspection including a post litigation inspection that was not objected to. I'll ask my assistant to work with your office to set our objections for hearing as soon as its filed and served tomorrow. Thank you, Julio On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Robert Schulte wrote: Mr. Martinez, | have not received any response or objection to the attached Request for Entry Upon Land. Accordingly, please provide five proposed dates in January for Defendant's representatives to inspect. The courtesy of a response on or before January 6, 2016 is requested. Kind Regards, Robert Schulte | Attorney at Law GROELLE & SALMON, P.A. 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33607 T: 813.849.7200 | F: 813.849.7201 EXHIBIT orerschulte@gspalaw.com | www.gspalaw.com Notice: Delivery of a court filing or discovery document to this email address will not be considered as served, and that any court filing or electronic discovery needs to be directed to gstcourtdocs@agspalaw.com. 1 attempt to respond to all e-mail communications within the business day. If you have an urgent communication and/or if you have not received a response to your e-mail, please contact me by telephone. PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is privileged. The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the party or parties to whom this email is addressed. This communication and all attachments are intended to be and to remain confidential, and may be subject to applicable attorney - client and or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message and its attachments. Do not deliver, distribute, or copy this message and or any attachments if you are not the intended recipient. Do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments. Although this E-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Groelle and Salmon P.A. Best Regards, Julio Martinez, Esq. Sherman Law PA 4000 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 265-S Hollywood, FL 33021 Tel: 954-894-8000 Fax: 305-397-1725 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication and, as such, is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6176 / Virus Database: 4489/11273 - Release Date: 12/28/1514211 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th 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., Defendant. / DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ENTRY UPON LAND COMES NOW, the Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (“HOMEOWNERS CHOICE”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, and hereby files its Motion to Compel Entry Upon Land seeking access to the insured property for the purpose of allowing its experts to conduct a site inspection, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350 and in support thereof states as follows: 1. Plaintiff, DEBRA HINES, filed a Complaint against Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE, a Breach of Contract action arising from an insurance claim for sinkhole loss made by Plaintiff to property owned by Plaintiff and insured by Defendant. 2. On Noveinber 20, 2015, Defendant filed Defendant’s Request for Entry Upon Land requesting that the Plaintiff permit entry upon the land for the purpose of allowing Defendant’s retained experts to inspect the property that is the subject of the lawsuit. See Exhibit A. EXHIBIT 1 Oo3. In this Request for Entry Upon Land, Defendant requested that the inspection of the property be performed at a mutually convenient date and time for all persons involved. See Exhibit A. 4. Defendant received no timely objection or response, and on December 30, 2015 requested Plaintiff's counsel provide five (5) proposed dates for the inspection. In response, Plaintiff advised that Plaintiff did object to the Request and that a formal objection is forthcoming. See Exhibit B. 5. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure establish the means by which a party may obtain entry upon the land of another party for purposes of discovery, Rule 1.350(a) Fla. R. Civ. P. states in pertinent part: “Any party may request any other party [...] to permit entry upon designated land or other property in the possession or control of the party upon whom the request is served for the purpose of inspection and measuring, surveying, photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any designated object or operation on it within the scope of rule 1.280(b).” (Emphasis Added) 6. Rule 1.350(b) Fla. R. Civ. P.: states in pertinent part: “Without leave of court the reguest may be served on the plaintiff after commencement of the action and on any other party with or after service of the process and initial pleading on that party. The request shall set forth the items to be inspected, either by individual item or category, and describe each item and category with reasonable particularity. The reguest shall specify a reasonable time, place, and manner of making the inspection or performing the related acts. The party to whom the request is directed shall serve a written response within 30 days after service of the request, except that a defendant may serve a response within 45 days after service of the process and initial pleading on that defendant. The court may allow a shorter or longer time. For each item or category the response shall state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for the objection shall be stated. If an objection is made to part of an item or category, the part shall be specified. [...] The party submitting the request may move for an order under rule 1.380 concerning any objection, failure to respond to the request, or any part of it, or failure to permit the inspection as requested.”(Emphasis Added) 7. Rule 1.380(a)(2) Fla. R. Civ. P. states in pertinent part: “Motion. [...] if a party in response to a request for inspection submitted under rule 1.350 fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as requested [...] the discovering party may move for an [...] order compelling inspection.” (Emphasis Added) 8. Requests for Entry Upon Land to perform inspections, such as the instant request, are standard fare in all claims concerning insurance losses to buildings, whether the alleged cause of the loss is fire, water, windstorm, or settlement due to sinkhole activity. 9. The Rules of Civil Procedure regarding requests to parties for documents, things, or entry on land authorizes discovery relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. Baron, Melnick & Powell, P.A. v. Costa, 478 So. 2d 492 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1985). 10. The inspection at the Plaintiff's property is clearly relevant to the subject matter of the pending action because the central issue for resolution by the finder of fact is whether the Plaintiffs property suffered a sinkhole loss covered under the insurance policy. 1]. The inspection is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 12. Unlike the Defendant, the Plaintiff has virtually unlimited access to the property which is the subject of this lawsuit for their consulting and trial experts. 13. Allowing the inspection of Plaintiffs property will result in no prejudice to the Plaintiffs however, prohibiting the inspection will result in substantial prejudice to the defense. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiff to allow HOMEOWNERS CHOICEentry upon the subject property for a inspection to be performed by its experts prior to trial, and for all further or alternative relief this Court deems just and proper. 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 at eserviceSLPA@gmail.com, and Morgan Barfield at Mbarfield@CorlessBarfield.com on this 31% day of December, 2015. HCP.14211 By: 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) Teo 7 Ldbedber ROBERT T. SCHULTE, ESQ. FBN: 8881914211 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th 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., Defendant. / DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND COMES NOW, the Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through its undersigned attorneys, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350, and requests Plaintiff, DEBRA HINES, permit entry upon the land designated below for the purpose of inspection and measuring, surveying, photographing, testing or sampling the property and any structures thereon, in conjunction with the above-referenced cause, and within the scope of the Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b). L. 2. w Property designated for inspection: 3816 S. Lake Terrace, Miramar, FL 33023. Inspection requested: Defendant requests the Plaintiff permit entry upon the land, property, and residence identified above for the purposes of inspection and measuring, surveying, photographing, testing or sampling the property and any structures thereon, Time, place and manner of inspection: Defendant requires access to the interior and exterior of the residence and any structures on the property identified above for the purposes of inspection and testing of the premises and any structures on the property to be conducted by Defendant's consulting experts. Defendant requests Plaintiffs permit inspection of the subject property as described above at a mutually convenient date and time for all parties and persons involved to be coordinated by counsel for the respective parties.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 at eserviceSLPA@gmail.com, on this 23 day of November, 2015. By: HCI.14211 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) gstcourtdocs(@espalaw.com rschulte@gspalaw.com Lilt Z Dubecber ROBERT T. SCHULTE, ESQ. FBN: 88819Robert Schulte From: Julio Martinez Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 4:57 PM To: Robert Schulte Ce: Georgina Robinson Subject: Re: Insured: Debra Hines - Claim No: 821089 - File No:HCP.14211.CL TimeMattersID: MBC4CAS9918DD131 TM Matter No: 14211 TM Matter Reference: Hines, Debra V. Homeowners Choice Robert, Pardon the delay but my objection was supposed to go out - it will be filed formally tomorrow. It appears we had a clerical issue on my end. The basis for our objection is that your client has already been provided numerous opportunities for inspection including a post litigation inspection that was not objected to. T'll ask my assistant to work with your office to set our objections for hearing as soon as its filed and served tomorrow. Thank you, Julio On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Robert Schulte wrote: Mr. Martinez, | have not received any response or objection to the attached Request for Entry Upon Land. Accordingly, please provide five proposed dates in January for Defendant's representatives to inspect. The courtesy of a response on or before January 6, 2016 is requested. Kind Regards, Robert Schulte | Attorney at Law GROELLE & SALMON, P.A. 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Causeway Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33607 T: 813.849.7200 | F: 813.849.7201 gare EXHIBITrschulte@gspalaw.com | www.gspalaw.com Notice: Delivery of « court filing or discovery document to this email address will not be considered as served, and that any court filing or electronic discovery needs to be directed to astcourtdocs@gspalow.com. ! attempt ta respond to all e-mail communications within the business day. If you hove an urgent communication and/or if you have nat received o response to your e-mail, please contact me by telephone. PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is privileged. The contents of this e-mail message ond any attachments are intended solely for the party or parties to whom this email is addressed. This communication and all attachments are intended to be and to remain confidential, and may be subject to applicable attorney - client and or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail ond delete this message and its attachments. Do not deliver, distribute, or copy this message and or any attachments if you ore not the intended recipient. Do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this communication or any attachments. Although this E-mail ond any attachments are believed to be free of any virus ar other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received ond opened, it is the responsiblity of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Groelle and Salmon P.A. Best Regards, Julio Martinez, Esq. Sherman Law PA 4000 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 265-S Hollywood, FL 33021 Tel: 954-894-8000 Fax: 305-397-1725 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication and, as such, is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is, strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6176 / Virus Database: 4489/11273 - Release Date: 12/28/15Robert Schulte — _ — — _ From: Morgan Barfield Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 5:25 PM To: Jonathan Hall Cc: Julio Martinez; Robert Schulte; Ryan Sherman; Brenda minors Subject: Re: Hines v. HOC - Inspection Jon thats ok if its only hand augers and nothing further, especially spts. So you guys think this is an organic issue huh? Sent from my iPhone On Jan 4, 2016, at 5:22 PM, Jonathan Hall wrote: Good afternoon Mr Martinez. Sorry for the delay. I thought Mr. Schulte responded to you and he thought I had. Our expert wants to do some hand auger borings. Please confirm your consent. Sent from my iPad On Dec 31, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Julio Martinez wrote: Gentlemen, We're in receipt of your motion. Unfortunately we had a mixup on our end filing the timely objection. Thus, will will not need to proceed with a hearing on your motion. Please ask your staff to coordinate the site inspection with Brenda Minors (cc'ed). That said, please do remind me who will be inspecting and the scope thereof. If memory serves, there was no destructive testing involvement. If so, we may in fact need to have Judge Bowman consider the issue. Thank you, have a save and happy new year. Best Regards, Julio Martinez, Esq. Sherman Law PA 4000 Hollywood Blvd. Suite 265-S Hollywood, FL 33021 Tel: 954-894-8000 Fax: 305-397-1725 The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message and its attachments may be an attorney-client communication and, as such, is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received thi hat any review, dissemination, EXHIBIT coedistribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6176 / Virus Database: 4489/11321 - Release Date: 01/04/16Ber. (HOU THES 14211 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17th 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., Defendant. / AGREED ORDER AS TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ENTRY UPON LAND THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Entry Upon Land, and the Court having considered the Motion, the agreement of the parties, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Request for Entry Upon Land is hereby GRANTED as follows: 1, The parties are to confer and to agree on a mutually determined date for Defendant’s representatives to conduct an inspection of the interior and exterior of the residence and any structures which are the subject of this litigation. nN Defendant’s representatives may not conduct any invasive or destructive testing at the property, with the exception of hand auger borings. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Broward County, Aigtita- thi: HN © Soman » 2016. Circuit Court Judge Copies furnished to: Morgan Barfield, Esq., Ryan Sherman, Esq. Robert T. Schulte, Esq. EXHIBIT ‘tabbles*