On December 08, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Nelson, Michelle D,
Nelson, Ronnie L,
and
American Security Insurance Company,
for INSURANCE CLAIM
in the District Court of Bay County.
Preview
Filing # 101125188 E-Filed 01/04/2020 04:03:23 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA
RONNIE L. NELSON & MICHELLE D. CASE NO.: 19-004449 CA
NELSON,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Plaintiffs, RONNIE L. NELSON & MICHELLE D. NELSON, by and through the
undersigned attorney, files this, their Reply to Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses, and in support
thereof alleges as follows:
1. This is an action for Breach of Contract and Declaratory Relief on a homeowner’s
policy of insurance issued by the Defendant. For failure to furnish the full amount of
benefits due and owing under the policy, filed by the undersigned attorneys.
2. Thereafter, Defendant served its Answer and Affirmative Defenses alleging
boilerplate affirmative defenses without any factual support.
3. Plaintiff thus hereby denies each and every allegation made by the Defendant in its
Answer and demands strict proof thereof.
4. The conclusory legal theories indicated by the Defendant do not even constitute
affirmative defenses pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140, as they are
vague, lack factual support, and are insufficient for the Plaintiff to reasonably preparea response by way of Reply. The Defendant does not plead any of the purported
defenses with specificity, as required by Rule 1.140.
5. The allegations consist primarily of redundant, immaterial and impertinent legal
conclusions which are thus improperly pled.
6. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure require that affirmative defenses “be stated
specifically and with particularity in the responsive pleading . . . .” Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.140(b).
7. The purported affirmative defenses raised are merely denials of what has been alleged
in the Complaint, and therefore are not proper Affirmative Defenses and must be
stricken.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically furnished to
Brandon.williams@bklaw.com; kal.mehta@hklaw.com, Brandon J. Williams, Esq. Holland &
Knight, L.L.P., 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 3300, Miami, Florida 33131, dated this 4 day of
January 2020.
STABINSKI & FUNT, PA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
757 NW 27" Avenue
Third Floor
Miami, Florida 33125
Telephone: (305) 643-3100
Facsimile: (305) 643-1382
E-Mail: wjohnson@stabinskilaw.com
gborras@stabinskilaw.com
/s/ William K. Johnson
William Kyle Johson, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 1003020
Document Filed Date
January 04, 2020
Case Filing Date
December 08, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Filing # 101125188 E-Filed 01/04/2020 04:03:23 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA RONNIE L. NELSON & MICHELLE D. CASE NO.: 19-004449 CA NELSON, Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. / PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Plaintiffs, RONNIE L. NELSON & MICHELLE D. NELSON, by and through the undersigned attorney, files this, their Reply to Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses, and in support thereof alleges as follows: 1. This is an action for Breach of Contract and Declaratory Relief on a homeowner’s policy of insurance issued by the Defendant. For failure to furnish the full amount of benefits due and owing under the policy, filed by the undersigned attorneys. 2. Thereafter, Defendant served its Answer and Affirmative Defenses alleging boilerplate affirmative defenses without any factual support. 3. Plaintiff thus hereby denies each and every allegation made by the Defendant in its Answer and demands strict proof thereof. 4. The conclusory legal theories indicated by the Defendant do not even constitute affirmative defenses pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140, as they are vague, lack factual support, and are insufficient for the Plaintiff to reasonably preparea response by way of Reply. The Defendant does not plead any of the purported defenses with specificity, as required by Rule 1.140. 5. The allegations consist primarily of redundant, immaterial and impertinent legal conclusions which are thus improperly pled. 6. The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure require that affirmative defenses “be stated specifically and with particularity in the responsive pleading . . . .” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b). 7. The purported affirmative defenses raised are merely denials of what has been alleged in the Complaint, and therefore are not proper Affirmative Defenses and must be stricken. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically furnished to Brandon.williams@bklaw.com; kal.mehta@hklaw.com, Brandon J. Williams, Esq. Holland & Knight, L.L.P., 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 3300, Miami, Florida 33131, dated this 4 day of January 2020. STABINSKI & FUNT, PA Attorneys for Plaintiffs 757 NW 27" Avenue Third Floor Miami, Florida 33125 Telephone: (305) 643-3100 Facsimile: (305) 643-1382 E-Mail: wjohnson@stabinskilaw.com gborras@stabinskilaw.com /s/ William K. Johnson William Kyle Johson, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 1003020