Preview
Case Number: CACE-14-016655 Division: 02
Filing # 17576988 Electronically Filed 08/27/2014 12:54:38 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO:
DEBRA HINES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
Defendant.
/
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
Plaintiff, DEBRA HINES, hereby sues Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE
PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. (hereinafter
“Defendant”), and alleges:
General Allegations
1. This is an action for damages in excess of fifteen thousand dollars
($15,000) exclusive of interest, costs.
2 At all material times the Plaintiff was/is a resident of BROWARD
COUNTY, Florida and was/is otherwise sui juris.
3. At all material times hereto the Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE
PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., was/is a company set up
to engage in the business of entering into contracts of insurance and is licensed to do, and
is doing, business throughout the state of Florida, including but not limited to
BROWARD COUNTY, Florida.
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 8/27/2014 12:54:37 PM.****4. The parties entered into an insurance policy bearing policy number
276483-1 (“Policy”), a true and correct copy of which the Plaintiff does not currently
have in his possession but which the Defendant is in possession of.
5 At all times material hereto, the policy of insurance referenced above
provided coverage for the property located at 3816 S. Lake Terrace, Miramar, Florida
33023 (the Property”), for losses occurring on account of a sinkhole.
6. On or about February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff suffered a loss on account of
a sinkhole causing damage to Plaintiff's property (hereinafter “SINKHOLE CLAIM”).
7. The Defendant assigned claim number 821089 to the SINKHOLE
CLAIM.
8. However, after conducting an investigation on the SINKHOLE CLAIM
Defendant has failed to honor Plaintiff's claim and compensate him for the covered
losses and, instead, denied said claim in full.
9. As such, Defendant has failed to fully, or even partially, indemnify the
Plaintiff for his SINKHOLE CLAIM, as it was contractually obligated to do pursuant to
the subject Policy.
10. The Plaintiff has performed all conditions precedent to recovery under the
aforementioned Policy and to the bringing of the instant action, and/or said conditions
have been waived by the Defendant.
Count I - Breach of Contract for Claim Number 821089
The Plaintiff readopts and realleges Paragraphs }-10, above, as if specifically set
forth herein and further alleges:HW. Despite the clear obligation to pay the Plaintiff for his losses due to the
subject SINKHOLE CLAIM, the Defendant has failed to fully or even partially
indemnify the Plaintiff for said losses, as covered under the subject Policy and, thus, has
breached the subject Policy.
12. The Plaintiff has been damaged monetarily in regard to their SINKHOLE
CLAIM by the failure of the Defendant to comply with its contractual obligations as
referenced herein.
13. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, the Plaintiff
has been obligated to retain the undersigned counsel to bring this action and, pursuant to
Florida Statutes §627.428 and others, the undersigned counsel is entitled to attorneys’
fees and costs in this matter to be paid by the Defendant.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for the Court to award damages for the amount
of the losses referenced herein against the Defendant due to the subject loss and for
attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.
Count I] — Petition for Declaratory Relief for Claim Number 821089
The Plaintiff readopts and realleges Paragraphs 1-10, above, as if specifically set
forth herein and further alleges:
14. Although Plaintiff believes that there has been a covered loss on the
SINKHOLE CLAIM, Plaintiff is in doubt or is uncertain as to the existence or non-
existence of his rights to coverage under the policy and has an actual, practical and
present need for a declaration of his rights by the Court.
15. The declaratory relief process sought in this action is not extraordinary
and is consistent with the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Higgins v.State Farm, 894 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2004), in which the court held that in conformance with
the recent trend of the law, declaratory judgment statutes have now been construed to
authorize an action to declare the existence or nonexistence of any right, or of "any fact
upon which the existence or nonexistence of such ... right does or may depend, and
whether such ... right.. now exists or will arise in the future.”
16. In this matter Defendant has taken the position that the SINKHOLE
CLAIM is not covered under applicable Policy of insurance. Conversely, it is the
Plaintiff's position that this claim is indeed covered under the Policy.
17. Asa direct and proximate result of the foregoing conflicting positions of
the parties, there is an actual bona-fide controversy between the parties which requires
judicial interpretation as to whether there has been a covered loss on the SINKHOLE
CLAIM and, accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a declaration as to his rights relative to coverage
for the SINKHOLE CLAIM.
18. In essence, the purpose of this declaratory decree action is to obtain a
judicial interpretation of the Policy, as it relates to the facts involved herein, that
determines the Plaintiff's rights to coverage on the SINKHOLE CLAIM.
19. Without such a declaratory decree, Plaintiff is unable to obtain insurance
benefits under the Policy.
20. Plaintiff has been obligated to engage the undersigned attorneys for the
prosecution of this action and is entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to
Fla. Stat. §627.428;
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court for a declaratory judgment
as follows:a to declare that there has been a covered loss on the SINKHOLE
CLAIM under the Policy;
b to award Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to
Fla. Stat. $627,428;
c to award Plaintiff prejudgment interest, and
d to declare such other and further orders or decrees as justice may
require and as may seem just and proper to this Court
Demand for Jury Trial
The Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a
jury.
Dated August 27, 2014.
Sherman Law, P.A.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265- S
Hollywood, FL 33021
Office: (954) 894-8000
Direct: (305) 494-6345
Fax: (305) 397-1725
By 2 ee
RYAN SHERMAN, Esq.
Florida Bar No.. 686271
JULIO MARTINEZ, Esq
Florida Bar No.; 85128
Eservice: fserviceS] PAccgmatl com
Preview
Case Number: CACE-14-016655 Division: 02 Filing # 17576988 Electronically Filed 08/27/2014 12:54:38 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: DEBRA HINES, Plaintiff, vs. HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant. / COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF Plaintiff, DEBRA HINES, hereby sues Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. (hereinafter “Defendant”), and alleges: General Allegations 1. This is an action for damages in excess of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) exclusive of interest, costs. 2 At all material times the Plaintiff was/is a resident of BROWARD COUNTY, Florida and was/is otherwise sui juris. 3. At all material times hereto the Defendant, HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., was/is a company set up to engage in the business of entering into contracts of insurance and is licensed to do, and is doing, business throughout the state of Florida, including but not limited to BROWARD COUNTY, Florida. *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 8/27/2014 12:54:37 PM.****4. The parties entered into an insurance policy bearing policy number 276483-1 (“Policy”), a true and correct copy of which the Plaintiff does not currently have in his possession but which the Defendant is in possession of. 5 At all times material hereto, the policy of insurance referenced above provided coverage for the property located at 3816 S. Lake Terrace, Miramar, Florida 33023 (the Property”), for losses occurring on account of a sinkhole. 6. On or about February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff suffered a loss on account of a sinkhole causing damage to Plaintiff's property (hereinafter “SINKHOLE CLAIM”). 7. The Defendant assigned claim number 821089 to the SINKHOLE CLAIM. 8. However, after conducting an investigation on the SINKHOLE CLAIM Defendant has failed to honor Plaintiff's claim and compensate him for the covered losses and, instead, denied said claim in full. 9. As such, Defendant has failed to fully, or even partially, indemnify the Plaintiff for his SINKHOLE CLAIM, as it was contractually obligated to do pursuant to the subject Policy. 10. The Plaintiff has performed all conditions precedent to recovery under the aforementioned Policy and to the bringing of the instant action, and/or said conditions have been waived by the Defendant. Count I - Breach of Contract for Claim Number 821089 The Plaintiff readopts and realleges Paragraphs }-10, above, as if specifically set forth herein and further alleges:HW. Despite the clear obligation to pay the Plaintiff for his losses due to the subject SINKHOLE CLAIM, the Defendant has failed to fully or even partially indemnify the Plaintiff for said losses, as covered under the subject Policy and, thus, has breached the subject Policy. 12. The Plaintiff has been damaged monetarily in regard to their SINKHOLE CLAIM by the failure of the Defendant to comply with its contractual obligations as referenced herein. 13. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, the Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the undersigned counsel to bring this action and, pursuant to Florida Statutes §627.428 and others, the undersigned counsel is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter to be paid by the Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for the Court to award damages for the amount of the losses referenced herein against the Defendant due to the subject loss and for attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. Count I] — Petition for Declaratory Relief for Claim Number 821089 The Plaintiff readopts and realleges Paragraphs 1-10, above, as if specifically set forth herein and further alleges: 14. Although Plaintiff believes that there has been a covered loss on the SINKHOLE CLAIM, Plaintiff is in doubt or is uncertain as to the existence or non- existence of his rights to coverage under the policy and has an actual, practical and present need for a declaration of his rights by the Court. 15. The declaratory relief process sought in this action is not extraordinary and is consistent with the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Higgins v.State Farm, 894 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2004), in which the court held that in conformance with the recent trend of the law, declaratory judgment statutes have now been construed to authorize an action to declare the existence or nonexistence of any right, or of "any fact upon which the existence or nonexistence of such ... right does or may depend, and whether such ... right.. now exists or will arise in the future.” 16. In this matter Defendant has taken the position that the SINKHOLE CLAIM is not covered under applicable Policy of insurance. Conversely, it is the Plaintiff's position that this claim is indeed covered under the Policy. 17. Asa direct and proximate result of the foregoing conflicting positions of the parties, there is an actual bona-fide controversy between the parties which requires judicial interpretation as to whether there has been a covered loss on the SINKHOLE CLAIM and, accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a declaration as to his rights relative to coverage for the SINKHOLE CLAIM. 18. In essence, the purpose of this declaratory decree action is to obtain a judicial interpretation of the Policy, as it relates to the facts involved herein, that determines the Plaintiff's rights to coverage on the SINKHOLE CLAIM. 19. Without such a declaratory decree, Plaintiff is unable to obtain insurance benefits under the Policy. 20. Plaintiff has been obligated to engage the undersigned attorneys for the prosecution of this action and is entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. §627.428; WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court for a declaratory judgment as follows:a to declare that there has been a covered loss on the SINKHOLE CLAIM under the Policy; b to award Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. $627,428; c to award Plaintiff prejudgment interest, and d to declare such other and further orders or decrees as justice may require and as may seem just and proper to this Court Demand for Jury Trial The Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. Dated August 27, 2014. Sherman Law, P.A. Attorney for Plaintiffs 4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265- S Hollywood, FL 33021 Office: (954) 894-8000 Direct: (305) 494-6345 Fax: (305) 397-1725 By 2 ee RYAN SHERMAN, Esq. Florida Bar No.. 686271 JULIO MARTINEZ, Esq Florida Bar No.; 85128 Eservice: fserviceS] PAccgmatl com