Answer: Debra Hines Plaintiff vs. Homeowners Choice Prop & Casualty Ins Co Defendant

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                Filing # 27394210 E-Filed 05/18/2015 11:24:49 AM

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.

*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 5/18/2015 11:24:48 AM.****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.

Count I - Breach of Contract

10. Denied.
11. Denied.
12. Denied.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant seeks judgment in its favor and tax all costs against the

Plaintiff.
Count II ~ Petition for Declaratory Relief
13. Denied.
14. Denied.
15. Denied.

16. Admitted.

17. Admitted.
18. Denied.
19. Denied.
20. Denied.
21. Denied.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant seeks judgment in its favor and tax all costs against the

Plaintiff.AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. The Defendant’s First Affirmative Defenses is that all physical loss to the
property is caused by excluded perils and exclusions. Specifically, the excluded perils for “wear
and tear, marring, deterioration” and for “settling, shrinking, bulging or expansion, including
resultant cracking, of pavements, patios, foundations, walls, floors, roofs, or ceilings” applies.
See page 7 of 18 of the HO 00 03 04 91 form. The exclusion for earth movement applies. See
page 8 of 18 of the HO 00 03 04 91 form. The exclusion for “faulty, inadequate or defective
design...repair...renovation...grading...compaction...maintenance” applies. See page 9 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 Defense is that the existing damage
exclusion applies. 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.

5. The Defendant’s Third 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.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@gmail.com, on this 1g day of

MAY, 2015.

GROELLE & SALMON, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant

7650 Courtney Campbell Cswy.
Suite 800

Tampa, FL 33607

(813) 849-7200 (telephone)
(813) 849-7201 (fax)

 
  

By:
N T. HALL, ESQUIRE
FBN: | 762601

ACI14211