Preview
Filing # 147093686 E-Filed 04/05/2022 03:06:36 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR BREVARD COUNTY, FL
CASE NO. 052020CA024628XXXXXX
ANTHONY DAVIS JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY DBA SECURITY FIRST FLORIDA,
Defendant.
/
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TAKE CORPORATION’S
DEPOSITION AND DEMAND FOR DESIGNATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE DEPONENT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the deposition of a corporate representative of
Security First Insurance Company, will be taken upon oral examination before Milestone
Reporting, a Notary Public, or some other official authorized by law to administer oaths
Virtually via Zoom:
httos://usO6web.zoom.us/i/8865 19567 14 ?pwd=bWh|MEU 1 bWJEYOKOUWloZIpPNIBEQTO9
Meeting ID: 886 5195 6714
Passcode: 320785
Commencing at 10:00 AM EST on May 19", 2022. This oral examination will be subject
to continuance or adjournment from time to time or place to place until completed.
Pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.310(b)(6), Defendant must designate one or more
officers, directors, managing agent, or persons to testify at deposition on Defendant’s
behalf regarding the following matters:
1. The investigation of the claim submitted by Plaintiff to Defendant.
2. Defendant’s claim decision(s), and the basis for Defendant’s claim
decision(s).
3. Facts and evidence supporting Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff's
Complaint and Affirmative Defenses;
4, Facts and evidence supporting Defendant’s response to discovery
requests;
Filing 147093686 ANTHONY DAVIS J VS SECURITY 05-2020-CA-024628-XXXX-XX5. The extent of the financial connection between Defendant and its
retained expert witness(es), and the cumulative amount of money
Defendant has paid to its retained expert witness(es) during their
relationship. This includes payments directly by Defendant to the
expert(s), and payments made by others to the expert(s) on behalf of
Defendant. (“A jury is entitled to know the extent of the financial
connection between the party and the witness, and the cumulative
amount a party has paid an expert during their relationship. A party
is entitled to argue to the jury that a witness might be more likely to
testify favorably on behalf of the party because of the witness’s
financial incentive to continue the financially advantageous
relationship. ... Any limitation on this inquiry has the potential for
thwarting the truth-seeking function of the trial process. As we
observed in Krawzak, we take “a strong stand against charades in
trials.” 675 So.2d at 118. To limit this discovery would potentially
leave the jury with a false impression concerning the extent of the
relationship between the witness and the party by allowing a party to
present a witness as an independent witness when, in fact, there has
been an extensive financial relationship between the party and the
expert. This limitation thus has the potential for undermining the
truth-seeking function and fairness of the trial.” Allstate Insurance
Company v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993, 997-998 (Fla. 1999)).
6. The extent of the financial connection between Defendant and any
third-party individuals or entities who performed inspections or
adjusted Plaintiff's claim, and the cumulative amount of money
Defendant has paid to those third-party individuals or entities during
their relationship. This includes payments directly by Defendant to the
third-party individuals or entities, and payments made by others to the
third-party individuals or entities on behalf of Defendant.
7. Any inspections, photographs, evaluations, reports and/or
appraisals related to the insured property described in the Complaint
in the underwriting file, including all such documents at or about the
time the policy was issued and all renewals of the policy.
8. The underwriting guidelines in effect for the insured property at
issue in this lawsuit at the time of Plaintiff's original application for
insurance, and all renewals of the policy.
9. The names and addresses of the companies who performed
inspections for the underwriting department at the time of Plaintiff's
original application and all renewals for insurance on the property at
issue in this lawsuit.
Filing 147093686 ANTHONY DAVIS J VS SECURITY 05-2020-CA-024628-XXXX-XXPursuant to Rule 1.310(b)(6), the person(s) so designated shall testify about the
above matters that are known or reasonably available to Defendant.
The person(s) so designated by Defendant shall also produce at the deposition the
following documents:
a) All non-privileged portions of the claim file regarding the subject
property including all photographs in their native digital format;
b) The complete underwriting file with regard to Defendant’s issuance of
insurance on the subject risk, and all renewals;
c) The underwriting guidelines in effect for the insured property at issue
in this lawsuit at the time of Plaintiffs’ original application for
insurance, and all renewals; and
d) Copies of any and all IRS 1099 Forms, W-9, or other comparable
documentation for any and all amounts paid by Defendant to any and
all individuals and/or entities involved in the investigation and/or
adjustment of the claim, for any reason whatsoever.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
furnished by electronic mail to Iniv Gabay, Esquire; Jonathan M. Diocares, Esquire; and
Ashley Ward-Singleton, Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., 1410 North Westshore
Boulevard Suite 200, Tampa, FL 33607, on this 5" day of April, 2022.
/s/ Gina Kimmel
GINA KIMMEL, ESQ., Esquire
Florida Bar No. 0121929
Morgan & Morgan, P.A.
20 N. Orange Avenue, 4" Floor
Post Office Box 4979
Orlando, Florida 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3414
Primary email: GKimmel@forthepeople.com
Secondary email:Smerillo@forthepeople.com
LRolon@forthepeople.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Filing 147093686 ANTHONY DAVIS J VS SECURITY 05-2020-CA-024628-XXXX-XX
Preview
Filing # 147093686 E-Filed 04/05/2022 03:06:36 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BREVARD COUNTY, FL CASE NO. 052020CA024628XXXXXX ANTHONY DAVIS JR., Plaintiff, v. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY DBA SECURITY FIRST FLORIDA, Defendant. / NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TAKE CORPORATION’S DEPOSITION AND DEMAND FOR DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVE DEPONENT PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the deposition of a corporate representative of Security First Insurance Company, will be taken upon oral examination before Milestone Reporting, a Notary Public, or some other official authorized by law to administer oaths Virtually via Zoom: httos://usO6web.zoom.us/i/8865 19567 14 ?pwd=bWh|MEU 1 bWJEYOKOUWloZIpPNIBEQTO9 Meeting ID: 886 5195 6714 Passcode: 320785 Commencing at 10:00 AM EST on May 19", 2022. This oral examination will be subject to continuance or adjournment from time to time or place to place until completed. Pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.310(b)(6), Defendant must designate one or more officers, directors, managing agent, or persons to testify at deposition on Defendant’s behalf regarding the following matters: 1. The investigation of the claim submitted by Plaintiff to Defendant. 2. Defendant’s claim decision(s), and the basis for Defendant’s claim decision(s). 3. Facts and evidence supporting Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint and Affirmative Defenses; 4, Facts and evidence supporting Defendant’s response to discovery requests; Filing 147093686 ANTHONY DAVIS J VS SECURITY 05-2020-CA-024628-XXXX-XX5. The extent of the financial connection between Defendant and its retained expert witness(es), and the cumulative amount of money Defendant has paid to its retained expert witness(es) during their relationship. This includes payments directly by Defendant to the expert(s), and payments made by others to the expert(s) on behalf of Defendant. (“A jury is entitled to know the extent of the financial connection between the party and the witness, and the cumulative amount a party has paid an expert during their relationship. A party is entitled to argue to the jury that a witness might be more likely to testify favorably on behalf of the party because of the witness’s financial incentive to continue the financially advantageous relationship. ... Any limitation on this inquiry has the potential for thwarting the truth-seeking function of the trial process. As we observed in Krawzak, we take “a strong stand against charades in trials.” 675 So.2d at 118. To limit this discovery would potentially leave the jury with a false impression concerning the extent of the relationship between the witness and the party by allowing a party to present a witness as an independent witness when, in fact, there has been an extensive financial relationship between the party and the expert. This limitation thus has the potential for undermining the truth-seeking function and fairness of the trial.” Allstate Insurance Company v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993, 997-998 (Fla. 1999)). 6. The extent of the financial connection between Defendant and any third-party individuals or entities who performed inspections or adjusted Plaintiff's claim, and the cumulative amount of money Defendant has paid to those third-party individuals or entities during their relationship. This includes payments directly by Defendant to the third-party individuals or entities, and payments made by others to the third-party individuals or entities on behalf of Defendant. 7. Any inspections, photographs, evaluations, reports and/or appraisals related to the insured property described in the Complaint in the underwriting file, including all such documents at or about the time the policy was issued and all renewals of the policy. 8. The underwriting guidelines in effect for the insured property at issue in this lawsuit at the time of Plaintiff's original application for insurance, and all renewals of the policy. 9. The names and addresses of the companies who performed inspections for the underwriting department at the time of Plaintiff's original application and all renewals for insurance on the property at issue in this lawsuit. Filing 147093686 ANTHONY DAVIS J VS SECURITY 05-2020-CA-024628-XXXX-XXPursuant to Rule 1.310(b)(6), the person(s) so designated shall testify about the above matters that are known or reasonably available to Defendant. The person(s) so designated by Defendant shall also produce at the deposition the following documents: a) All non-privileged portions of the claim file regarding the subject property including all photographs in their native digital format; b) The complete underwriting file with regard to Defendant’s issuance of insurance on the subject risk, and all renewals; c) The underwriting guidelines in effect for the insured property at issue in this lawsuit at the time of Plaintiffs’ original application for insurance, and all renewals; and d) Copies of any and all IRS 1099 Forms, W-9, or other comparable documentation for any and all amounts paid by Defendant to any and all individuals and/or entities involved in the investigation and/or adjustment of the claim, for any reason whatsoever. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by electronic mail to Iniv Gabay, Esquire; Jonathan M. Diocares, Esquire; and Ashley Ward-Singleton, Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., 1410 North Westshore Boulevard Suite 200, Tampa, FL 33607, on this 5" day of April, 2022. /s/ Gina Kimmel GINA KIMMEL, ESQ., Esquire Florida Bar No. 0121929 Morgan & Morgan, P.A. 20 N. Orange Avenue, 4" Floor Post Office Box 4979 Orlando, Florida 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3414 Primary email: GKimmel@forthepeople.com Secondary email:Smerillo@forthepeople.com LRolon@forthepeople.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Filing 147093686 ANTHONY DAVIS J VS SECURITY 05-2020-CA-024628-XXXX-XX