Preview
Filing # 27761502 E-Filed 05/27/2015 03:41:44 PM
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.
a Florida Corporation,
Defendant.
/
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF FILING
AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Defendant, by and through its undersigned counsel, having received
written consent of the Plaintiff, and pursuant to Rule 1.190(a), Fla. R. Civ. P., and gives notice of
Filing Defendant’s Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint.
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished
via Electronic Mail to: Ryan Sherman, Esq., at eservicesSLPA@ gmail.com, on this 27
May, 2015.
day of
GROELLE & SALMON, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant
7650 Courtney Campbell Cswy.
Suite 800
Tampa, FL 33607
(813) 849-7200 (telephone)
(813) 849-7201 (fax)
py, Pvt T Debecbe-
ROBERT T. SCHULTE, ESQ.
FBN: 88819
HCI14211
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 5/27/2015 3:41:44 PM.****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.
a Florida Corporation,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Defendant, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby responds to
the First Amended Complaint and states:
General Allegations
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted that policy number HPC1540319 was in effect from July 20, 2011 to
July 20, 2012. Denied that the Plaintiff was not provided a copy.
5. Admitted that policy number HPC1540319 was in effect from July 20, 2011 to
July 20, 2012. Admitted that the policy included coverage for sinkhole loss per the HW 07 07 04
11 endorsement. Denied that the policy provided coverage for a sinkhole.
6. Denied.
7. Admitted.8.
Admitted that the claim was denied. Denied that the Defendant failed to
compensate the Plaintiff for covered losses.
9.
Admitted that the claim was denied. Denied that the Defendant failed to comply
with contractual obligations.
10.
Il.
12
Count I — Breach of Contract
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant seeks judgment in its favor and tax all costs against the
Plaintiff.
14,
1S.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Count II — Petition for Declaratory Relief
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Admitted.
Admitted.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant seeks judgment in its favor and tax all costs against the
Plaintiff.AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The Defendant’s First Affirmative Defense is that the physical loss to the
property was caused by excluded perils and exclusions. Specifically, some or all of the physical
loss was caused by “wear and tear, marring, deterioration” See page 7 of 18 of the HO 00 03 04
91 form.
2. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of SDII Global Corporation
as set forth in section 4.0 CONCLUSIONS of its May 2012 Final Report. These findings are
presumed correct pursuant to Florida Statute 627.7073.
3. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of the neutral evaluator
Darrell Hanecki as set forth in his report dated December 1, 2013.
4. The Defendant’s Second Affirmative Defenses is that the physical loss to the
property was caused by excluded perils and exclusions. Specifically, some or all of the physical
loss was caused by “settling, shrinking, bulging or expansion, including resultant cracking, of
pavements, patios, foundations, walls, floors, roofs, or ceilings”. See page 7 of 18 of the HO 00
03 04 91 form.
5. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of SDII Global Corporation
as set forth in section 4.0 CONCLUSIONS of its May 2012 Final Report. These findings are
presumed correct pursuant to Florida Statute 627.7073.
6. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of the neutral evaluator
Darrell Hanecki as set forth in his report dated December 1, 2013.
7. The Defendant’s Third Affirmative Defenses is that the physical loss to the
property was caused by excluded perils and exclusions. Specifically, some or all of the physical
loss was caused by earth movement. See page 8 of 18 of the HO 00 03 04 91 form.8. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of SDII Global Corporation
as set forth in section 4.0 CONCLUSIONS of its May 2012 Final Report. These findings are
presumed correct pursuant to Florida Statute 627.7073.
9. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of the neutral evaluator
Darrell Hanecki as set forth in his report dated December 1, 2013.
10. The Defendant’s Fourth Affirmative Defenses is that the physical loss to the
property was caused by excluded perils and exclusions. Specifically, some or all of the physical
loss was caused by “faulty, inadequate or defective
design...repair...renovation...grading...compaction...maintenance”. See page 9 of 18 of the
HO 00 03 04 91 form.
11. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of SDII Global Corporation
as set forth in section 4.0 CONCLUSIONS of its May 2012 Final Report. These findings are
presumed correct pursuant to Florida Statute 627.7073.
12. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of the neutral evaluator
Darrell Hanecki as set forth in his report dated December 1, 2013.
13. The Defendant’s Fifth Affirmative Defenses is that the existing damage
exclusion applies to this loss. See HW 00 06 02 10 endorsement. This defense is supported and
based upon the recorded statement by the Plaintiff that she began noticing cracking in 2009, and
has been attempting to make repairs since that time.
14. The Defendant’s Sixth Affirmative Defense is that the physical loss did not
occur during the policy period. This defense is supported and based upon the recorded statement
by the Plaintiff that she began noticing cracking in 2009, and has been attempting to make
repairs since that time.15. Defendant, HOMEOWNERS, reserves its right to amend these Affirmative
Defenses as discovery in this matter progresses.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished
via Electronic Mail to: Ryan Sherman, Esq., at eservicesSLPA@email.com, on this 278 day of
May, 2015.
By:
ACI14211
GROELLE & SALMON, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant
7650 Courtney Campbell Cswy.
Suite 800
Tampa, FL 33607
(813) 849-7200 (telephone)
(813) 849-7201 (fax)
Tehtut T ebedbe-
ROBERT T. SCHULTE, ESQ.
FBN: 88819
JONATHAN T. HALL, ESQUIRE
FBN: 762601
Preview
Filing # 27761502 E-Filed 05/27/2015 03:41:44 PM 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. a Florida Corporation, Defendant. / DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF FILING AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW, Defendant, by and through its undersigned counsel, having received written consent of the Plaintiff, and pursuant to Rule 1.190(a), Fla. R. Civ. P., and gives notice of Filing Defendant’s Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via Electronic Mail to: Ryan Sherman, Esq., at eservicesSLPA@ gmail.com, on this 27 May, 2015. day of GROELLE & SALMON, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant 7650 Courtney Campbell Cswy. Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33607 (813) 849-7200 (telephone) (813) 849-7201 (fax) py, Pvt T Debecbe- ROBERT T. SCHULTE, ESQ. FBN: 88819 HCI14211 *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 5/27/2015 3:41:44 PM.****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. a Florida Corporation, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT COMES NOW, Defendant, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby responds to the First Amended Complaint and states: General Allegations 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted that policy number HPC1540319 was in effect from July 20, 2011 to July 20, 2012. Denied that the Plaintiff was not provided a copy. 5. Admitted that policy number HPC1540319 was in effect from July 20, 2011 to July 20, 2012. Admitted that the policy included coverage for sinkhole loss per the HW 07 07 04 11 endorsement. Denied that the policy provided coverage for a sinkhole. 6. Denied. 7. Admitted.8. Admitted that the claim was denied. Denied that the Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff for covered losses. 9. Admitted that the claim was denied. Denied that the Defendant failed to comply with contractual obligations. 10. Il. 12 Count I — Breach of Contract Denied. Denied. Denied. WHEREFORE, the Defendant seeks judgment in its favor and tax all costs against the Plaintiff. 14, 1S. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Count II — Petition for Declaratory Relief Denied. Denied. Denied. Admitted. Admitted. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. WHEREFORE, the Defendant seeks judgment in its favor and tax all costs against the Plaintiff.AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Defendant’s First Affirmative Defense is that the physical loss to the property was caused by excluded perils and exclusions. Specifically, some or all of the physical loss was caused by “wear and tear, marring, deterioration” See page 7 of 18 of the HO 00 03 04 91 form. 2. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of SDII Global Corporation as set forth in section 4.0 CONCLUSIONS of its May 2012 Final Report. These findings are presumed correct pursuant to Florida Statute 627.7073. 3. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of the neutral evaluator Darrell Hanecki as set forth in his report dated December 1, 2013. 4. The Defendant’s Second Affirmative Defenses is that the physical loss to the property was caused by excluded perils and exclusions. Specifically, some or all of the physical loss was caused by “settling, shrinking, bulging or expansion, including resultant cracking, of pavements, patios, foundations, walls, floors, roofs, or ceilings”. See page 7 of 18 of the HO 00 03 04 91 form. 5. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of SDII Global Corporation as set forth in section 4.0 CONCLUSIONS of its May 2012 Final Report. These findings are presumed correct pursuant to Florida Statute 627.7073. 6. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of the neutral evaluator Darrell Hanecki as set forth in his report dated December 1, 2013. 7. The Defendant’s Third Affirmative Defenses is that the physical loss to the property was caused by excluded perils and exclusions. Specifically, some or all of the physical loss was caused by earth movement. See page 8 of 18 of the HO 00 03 04 91 form.8. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of SDII Global Corporation as set forth in section 4.0 CONCLUSIONS of its May 2012 Final Report. These findings are presumed correct pursuant to Florida Statute 627.7073. 9. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of the neutral evaluator Darrell Hanecki as set forth in his report dated December 1, 2013. 10. The Defendant’s Fourth Affirmative Defenses is that the physical loss to the property was caused by excluded perils and exclusions. Specifically, some or all of the physical loss was caused by “faulty, inadequate or defective design...repair...renovation...grading...compaction...maintenance”. See page 9 of 18 of the HO 00 03 04 91 form. 11. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of SDII Global Corporation as set forth in section 4.0 CONCLUSIONS of its May 2012 Final Report. These findings are presumed correct pursuant to Florida Statute 627.7073. 12. This defense is supported and based upon the findings of the neutral evaluator Darrell Hanecki as set forth in his report dated December 1, 2013. 13. The Defendant’s Fifth Affirmative Defenses is that the existing damage exclusion applies to this loss. See HW 00 06 02 10 endorsement. This defense is supported and based upon the recorded statement by the Plaintiff that she began noticing cracking in 2009, and has been attempting to make repairs since that time. 14. The Defendant’s Sixth Affirmative Defense is that the physical loss did not occur during the policy period. This defense is supported and based upon the recorded statement by the Plaintiff that she began noticing cracking in 2009, and has been attempting to make repairs since that time.15. Defendant, HOMEOWNERS, reserves its right to amend these Affirmative Defenses as discovery in this matter progresses. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via Electronic Mail to: Ryan Sherman, Esq., at eservicesSLPA@email.com, on this 278 day of May, 2015. By: ACI14211 GROELLE & SALMON, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant 7650 Courtney Campbell Cswy. Suite 800 Tampa, FL 33607 (813) 849-7200 (telephone) (813) 849-7201 (fax) Tehtut T ebedbe- ROBERT T. SCHULTE, ESQ. FBN: 88819 JONATHAN T. HALL, ESQUIRE FBN: 762601