On May 30, 2014 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Easy Auto Glass,
and
Geico General Insurance Company,
for SMALL CLAIMS 2 - $100 - $500
in the District Court of Pinellas County.
Preview
Case Number: 14-003996-SC
Filing # 14267748 Electronically Filed 05/30/2014 03:47:00 PM
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
SMALL CLAIMS
EASY AUTO GLASS
a/a/o, MARTA BONILLA,
Plaintiff, CASE NO.:
vs.
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
/
PL
TIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT.
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
PURSUANT TO Rule 1.370, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant is hereby
requested to admit the truth of these matters hereinafter set forth on or by the forty-fifth (45th)
day after service hereof, answering in writing.
1, At all times material hereto, Defendant was a corporation duly licenses to transact
insurance business in the State of Florida and engaged in the business of automobile insurance.
2. Defendant maintained agents in Pinellas County, Florida for the transaction of its
customary business in Pinellas County, Florida.
3. The Defendant’s name as it appears in the Complaint is accurate.
4. Venue lies in Pinellas County, Florida for this action.
5. The above-styled Court, in and for Pinellas County, Florida has jurisdiction over
the claim of the Plaintiff against the Defendant.
6. The Plaintiff has standing to bring this lawsuit.
7. The Defendant issued an automobile insurance policy which provides
comprehensive and/or collision benefits for the repair and/or replacement of the vehicle
referenced in the complaint.
8. The above-described automobile policy issued by the Defendant was in full force
and effect on the date of the subject loss.
***ELECTRONICALLY FILED 5/30/2014 3:47:01 PM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY***9. Defendant has no report and/or appraisal with regard to any repairs for which
benefits are sought by Plaintiff specifically stating that the repairs were “not reasonable.”
10. Defendant has no report and/or appraisals with regard to any repairs for which
benefits are sought by Plaintiff specifically stating that the repairs were not “exorbitant”.
11. Defendant has not provided Plaintiff with any reports and/or appraisals stating
that the repairs for which the Plaintiff seeks compensation and/or collision benefits were not
oe
“reasonable”, “not related” or “exorbitant”.
12. Defendant never requested or sought an appraisal for the damages at issue in this
matter.
13. Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff's comprehensive and/or collision claim
without “reasonable proof to establish” that Defendant was not responsible for the payment.
14. Comprehensive and/or collision benefits are due payable as loss accrues, upon
receipt of reasonable proof of such loss and the amount of expenses and loss incurred which are
covered under the policy.
15. Insured’s policy with Defendant is to provide insurance for payment of benefits
described as the repair and/or replacement of its insured’s automobile glass damage.
16. Under the terms of the subject policy with Defendant, all comprehensive and/or
collision benefits are overdue if not paid within (30) days after Defendant is furnished with
written notice of the fact of a covered loss and the amount of the same unless Defendant has
reasonable proof to establish it is not responsible for the payment.
17. Under the insured’s policy with Defendant, all overdue comprehensive and/or
collision benefits must bear simple interest at the rate set by the Comptroller for the year in
which payment is due.
18. It is the Defendant’s normal business practice not to request an appraisal for a
broken or damaged windshield.
19. Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with an explanation as to why the invoice
submitted by the Defendant was not paid or was not paid in full.
20. Under the Insured’s policy with Defendant, the provisions of Florida Statute §
627.428, apply to any dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant concerning the coverage at issue
in this matter.
21. A multiplier of the Lode Star for Attorney’s Fees is appropriate if Plaintiff
hearing has a contingency fee contract with the undersigned firm.22. Defendant was furnished with written notice of the fact of a covered loss with
regard to the portions of the Plaintiff's comprehensive and/or collision claim which are subject of
the dispute herein.
23. There is not a standard or proper method for determining the reasonable cost of
the replacement of a windshield and/or glass repair for an automobile.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served along
with the Complaint.
/s/ John C. Murrow
John C. Murrow, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Florida Bar No. 0010221
4856 West Gandy Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33611
Phone: (813) 999-4950
Fax: (813) 999-4955
Service-john@johncmurrowlaw.com
Document Filed Date
May 30, 2014
Case Filing Date
May 30, 2014
Category
SMALL CLAIMS 2 - $100 - $500
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Case Number: 14-003996-SC Filing # 14267748 Electronically Filed 05/30/2014 03:47:00 PM IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA SMALL CLAIMS EASY AUTO GLASS a/a/o, MARTA BONILLA, Plaintiff, CASE NO.: vs. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. / PL TIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY PURSUANT TO Rule 1.370, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant is hereby requested to admit the truth of these matters hereinafter set forth on or by the forty-fifth (45th) day after service hereof, answering in writing. 1, At all times material hereto, Defendant was a corporation duly licenses to transact insurance business in the State of Florida and engaged in the business of automobile insurance. 2. Defendant maintained agents in Pinellas County, Florida for the transaction of its customary business in Pinellas County, Florida. 3. The Defendant’s name as it appears in the Complaint is accurate. 4. Venue lies in Pinellas County, Florida for this action. 5. The above-styled Court, in and for Pinellas County, Florida has jurisdiction over the claim of the Plaintiff against the Defendant. 6. The Plaintiff has standing to bring this lawsuit. 7. The Defendant issued an automobile insurance policy which provides comprehensive and/or collision benefits for the repair and/or replacement of the vehicle referenced in the complaint. 8. The above-described automobile policy issued by the Defendant was in full force and effect on the date of the subject loss. ***ELECTRONICALLY FILED 5/30/2014 3:47:01 PM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY***9. Defendant has no report and/or appraisal with regard to any repairs for which benefits are sought by Plaintiff specifically stating that the repairs were “not reasonable.” 10. Defendant has no report and/or appraisals with regard to any repairs for which benefits are sought by Plaintiff specifically stating that the repairs were not “exorbitant”. 11. Defendant has not provided Plaintiff with any reports and/or appraisals stating that the repairs for which the Plaintiff seeks compensation and/or collision benefits were not oe “reasonable”, “not related” or “exorbitant”. 12. Defendant never requested or sought an appraisal for the damages at issue in this matter. 13. Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff's comprehensive and/or collision claim without “reasonable proof to establish” that Defendant was not responsible for the payment. 14. Comprehensive and/or collision benefits are due payable as loss accrues, upon receipt of reasonable proof of such loss and the amount of expenses and loss incurred which are covered under the policy. 15. Insured’s policy with Defendant is to provide insurance for payment of benefits described as the repair and/or replacement of its insured’s automobile glass damage. 16. Under the terms of the subject policy with Defendant, all comprehensive and/or collision benefits are overdue if not paid within (30) days after Defendant is furnished with written notice of the fact of a covered loss and the amount of the same unless Defendant has reasonable proof to establish it is not responsible for the payment. 17. Under the insured’s policy with Defendant, all overdue comprehensive and/or collision benefits must bear simple interest at the rate set by the Comptroller for the year in which payment is due. 18. It is the Defendant’s normal business practice not to request an appraisal for a broken or damaged windshield. 19. Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with an explanation as to why the invoice submitted by the Defendant was not paid or was not paid in full. 20. Under the Insured’s policy with Defendant, the provisions of Florida Statute § 627.428, apply to any dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant concerning the coverage at issue in this matter. 21. A multiplier of the Lode Star for Attorney’s Fees is appropriate if Plaintiff hearing has a contingency fee contract with the undersigned firm.22. Defendant was furnished with written notice of the fact of a covered loss with regard to the portions of the Plaintiff's comprehensive and/or collision claim which are subject of the dispute herein. 23. There is not a standard or proper method for determining the reasonable cost of the replacement of a windshield and/or glass repair for an automobile. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served along with the Complaint. /s/ John C. Murrow John C. Murrow, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Florida Bar No. 0010221 4856 West Gandy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33611 Phone: (813) 999-4950 Fax: (813) 999-4955 Service-john@johncmurrowlaw.com