Preview
Filing # 105006455 E-Filed 03/17/2020 12:24:54 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, 14TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: — 19 004405 CA
PATSY J. ODOM,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Florida insurance corporation,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Plaintiff, PATSY J. ODOM, by and through her undersigned attorneys, replies to the
affirmative defenses pleaded by Defendant as follows:
1. Inreply to the first affirmative defense, the Plaintiff states Defendant, having accepted
coverage for Plaintiff’ s loss and having made payments to Plaintiff for that loss, and having failed
to raise in response to Plaintiff's claim any such policy exclusions or limitations as set forth by
Defendant in its first affirmative defense, waived such policy provisions as a basis for this defense.
2. In further reply to the first affirmative defense, the policy provisions identified by
Defendant under Section 1 - Perils Insured Against, Coverage A, are inapplicable if a covered loss
(Hurricane Michael) combines with loss caused by those set forth in such policy provisions, and
accordingly do not constitute an affirmative defense to this action.
3. In further reply to the first affirmative defense, the allegations of that defense are
denied and Plaintiff demands strict proof thereof.
4. As to the second affirmative defense, by accepting coverage for Plaintiff’ s claim and
making payments to Plaintiff, Defendant waived its right under the policy to claim failure of Plaintiff
to comply with policy conditions as identified by Defendant in its second affirmative defense.Further, the defense as pleaded is not proper under the law in that Defendant has failed to allege how
it was prejudiced by Plaintiffs claimed non-compliance with those policy conditions.
5. In further reply to the second affirmative defense, the allegations are denied and
Plaintiff demands strict proof thereof.
6. In reply to the third affirmative defense, Defendant having accepted coverage for
Plaintiff’ s loss and having made payment to Plaintiff on her claim, waived its right to allege matters
relating to Plaintiff’s alleged failure to mitigate. In further reply to the third affirmative defense, the
allegations are denied and Plaintiff demands strict proof thereof.
7. The allegations of the fourth affirmative defense are denied and Plaintiff demands
strict proof thereof.
8. The allegations of the fifth affirmative defense do not constitute an affirmative
defense to this action. Moreover, the allegations of the fifth affirmative defense are denied and
Plaintiff demands strict proof thereof.
9. The allegations of the sixth affirmative defense do not constitute an affirmative
defense to this action. Moreover, the allegations of the sixth affirmative defense are denied and
Plaintiff demands strict proof thereof.
TYLER & HAMILTON, P.A.
/s/Clark Hamilton, Jr.
CLARK HAMILTON, JR.
Florida Bar No.: 311731
4741 Atlantic Boulevard, Suite A
Jacksonville, Florida 32207
(904) 398-9999 Telephone
(904) 398-0806 Facsimile
tandhpa @bellsouth.net
and
Page -2-MANUEL & THOMPSON, P.A.
Jay Manuel, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 651052
120 Richard Jackson Boulevard, Suite 200
Panama City, FL 325407
(850) 785-5555 Telephone
(850) 785-0133 Facsimile
jay @manuelthompson.com
lucy @manuelthompson.com
elouise@manuelthompson.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff, PATSY J. ODOM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been
furnished via Electronic Mail (Email) and the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal to: NICOLE M.
FLUET, ESQ. AND SARAH K. CULLETON, ESQ., Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr &
Smith, PLC, 400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33602, attorneys for Defendant, this 17"
day of March, 2020.
/s/ Clark Hamilton, Jr.
Attorney
Page -3-
Preview
Filing # 105006455 E-Filed 03/17/2020 12:24:54 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, 14TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: — 19 004405 CA PATSY J. ODOM, Plaintiff, v. TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida insurance corporation, Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Plaintiff, PATSY J. ODOM, by and through her undersigned attorneys, replies to the affirmative defenses pleaded by Defendant as follows: 1. Inreply to the first affirmative defense, the Plaintiff states Defendant, having accepted coverage for Plaintiff’ s loss and having made payments to Plaintiff for that loss, and having failed to raise in response to Plaintiff's claim any such policy exclusions or limitations as set forth by Defendant in its first affirmative defense, waived such policy provisions as a basis for this defense. 2. In further reply to the first affirmative defense, the policy provisions identified by Defendant under Section 1 - Perils Insured Against, Coverage A, are inapplicable if a covered loss (Hurricane Michael) combines with loss caused by those set forth in such policy provisions, and accordingly do not constitute an affirmative defense to this action. 3. In further reply to the first affirmative defense, the allegations of that defense are denied and Plaintiff demands strict proof thereof. 4. As to the second affirmative defense, by accepting coverage for Plaintiff’ s claim and making payments to Plaintiff, Defendant waived its right under the policy to claim failure of Plaintiff to comply with policy conditions as identified by Defendant in its second affirmative defense.Further, the defense as pleaded is not proper under the law in that Defendant has failed to allege how it was prejudiced by Plaintiffs claimed non-compliance with those policy conditions. 5. In further reply to the second affirmative defense, the allegations are denied and Plaintiff demands strict proof thereof. 6. In reply to the third affirmative defense, Defendant having accepted coverage for Plaintiff’ s loss and having made payment to Plaintiff on her claim, waived its right to allege matters relating to Plaintiff’s alleged failure to mitigate. In further reply to the third affirmative defense, the allegations are denied and Plaintiff demands strict proof thereof. 7. The allegations of the fourth affirmative defense are denied and Plaintiff demands strict proof thereof. 8. The allegations of the fifth affirmative defense do not constitute an affirmative defense to this action. Moreover, the allegations of the fifth affirmative defense are denied and Plaintiff demands strict proof thereof. 9. The allegations of the sixth affirmative defense do not constitute an affirmative defense to this action. Moreover, the allegations of the sixth affirmative defense are denied and Plaintiff demands strict proof thereof. TYLER & HAMILTON, P.A. /s/Clark Hamilton, Jr. CLARK HAMILTON, JR. Florida Bar No.: 311731 4741 Atlantic Boulevard, Suite A Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (904) 398-9999 Telephone (904) 398-0806 Facsimile tandhpa @bellsouth.net and Page -2-MANUEL & THOMPSON, P.A. Jay Manuel, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 651052 120 Richard Jackson Boulevard, Suite 200 Panama City, FL 325407 (850) 785-5555 Telephone (850) 785-0133 Facsimile jay @manuelthompson.com lucy @manuelthompson.com elouise@manuelthompson.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, PATSY J. ODOM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been furnished via Electronic Mail (Email) and the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal to: NICOLE M. FLUET, ESQ. AND SARAH K. CULLETON, ESQ., Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith, PLC, 400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33602, attorneys for Defendant, this 17" day of March, 2020. /s/ Clark Hamilton, Jr. Attorney Page -3-