Preview
Filing # 115867783 E-Filed 10/29/2020 08:34:27 PM
MITCHELLE R ORDONEZ, an individual, and IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH
DOREEN B ORDONEZ, an individual, JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
Plaintiffs,
ie GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, a _ Florida
governmental entity,
CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656
Defendant.
/
MOTION TO OVERRULE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
T FOR PRODUCTION, AND
INTERROGATORIES
COME NOW, the Plaintiffs, MITCHELLE R ORDONEZ, and DOREEN B ORDONEZ
(collectively the “Plaintiffs”), by and through the undersigned counsel file this Motion to Overrule
Defendant’s, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (the
“Defendant”), Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production, and Plaintiffs’ First Set of
Interrogatories, and in support thereof state as follows:
1. On or about October 28, 2019, the Plaintiffs served the Defendant with the
Complaint and with Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production to Defendant, and Plaintiffs’ First
Set of Interrogatories to Defendant.
2. On or about January 3, 2020, Defendant served the Plaintiffs with Defendant’s
Response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production, and Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiffs’
First Set of Interrogatories. A true and correct copy of Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs’ First
Request for Production, and Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories are
attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “A.”
3. In response to the Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production to Defendant, Defendant
made specific objections to request numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, and 35.
PAGE 1 OF 10
SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC
1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 « Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-1055
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 10/29/2020 08:34:26 PM.****4. Inresponse to the Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant, Defendant made
specific objections to interrogatory numbers: 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and16.
5. According to Rule 1.340 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, a party must either
answer or object to each Interrogatory and said objection must be stated with particularity. As
such, Defendant’s objections are improper and should be overruled. Additionally, Defendant has
waived said objections by filing these responses in violation of this Court’s orders.
6. In pertinent part, Plaintiffs’ Request for Production numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 14, 16,
1.
10.
ll.
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, and 35 read as follows:
Any and all repair bills and/or estimates and/or appraisals for the Property involved
in the Lawsuit.
Any and all photographs of any home involved in this litigation showing property
damage.
Any and all photographs of the Plaintiffs’ Property pre and post the Loss identified
in the Complaint.
Any and all photographs of Plaintiffs’ Property as identified in the Complaint taken
prior to the date of loss as identified in the Complaint.
Any other photographs of anything or person which is relevant and material to the
claim of the Plaintiffs or defense(s) of the Defendant.
Any diagram, chart, map or description of the Plaintiffs’ Property as identified in
the Complaint.
Any and all written or recorded statements taken of the Plaintiffs.
Any and all written or recorded statements taken of any witnesses.
Any report of any person hired by the Defendant that is expected to testify at trial
as an expert.
A copy of any and all insurance policies of Defendant that were in effect on the
date of the Loss.
Any other thing, document or tangible piece of evidence material to this Lawsuit
which Defendant or defense counsel tentatively plan to introduce into evidence or
make reference to at the trial of this cause.
PAGE 2 OF 10
SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC
1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-105512. The original or copies of all releases and hold harmless agreements to which the
Defendant is a party which cover the subject loss identified in the Complaint.
14. A copy of all records indicating receipt of premiums Plaintiffs paid for the
insurance Policy at issue in this action.
16. Every document that memorializes or otherwise reflects any communication made
by Plaintiffs to Defendant or by Defendant to Plaintiffs.
17. Every statement in your possession, whether written or recorded, which statement
was given by Plaintiffs to any person(s).
18. Notes of any interviews or phone conversations between anyone and Plaintiffs.
19. Every other recorded statement pertaining in any manner to the adjustment of
Plaintiffs’ claim or other issues raised in this action.
20. Every photograph, film, videotape, diagram, and other such item depicting
Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ property.
21. Every bulletin, manual, or other similar claims-related publication that you
distributed to any adjuster, engineer, or other employee/agent who was involved in
Plaintiffs’ claim.
23. A true and complete copy of the underwriting file of the Property.
24. Every document, including correspondence, exchanged between you and any
governmental or quasi-governmental entity in connection with Plaintiffs’ claim.
25. Every price list that has been in effect for the geographic area encompassing
Plaintiffs’ property for the time period September 10, 2016, until the present date.
26. Every book, depreciation or other table, guide, or other such document relied upon
by you in determining the value of Plaintiffs’ property or the valuation of damage
to that property.
28. A copy of every adjuster’s estimate in your possession, custody, or control relating
to Plaintiffs’ property.
29.Every other document, including all reports, emails, correspondence, and
checks/drafts, exchanged between Defendant and anyone else, or internally
between Defendant’s employees or agents, which document related in any way to
Plaintiffs’ claim. This request specifically encompasses every claim-related
“document” in your possession not produced in response to an earlier request. It
should not be construed to duplicate earlier requests or to require redundant
production. It is specifically tailored to reach only documents not addressed by
your responses to (or production in response to) earlier requests.
32. Every document, including all reports, emails, correspondence, memorandum,
PAGE 3 OF 10
SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC
1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 + Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-1055pictures, insurance provisions, and checks/drafts, which support your denial of the
subject Claim, or any part of the Claim.
34. Every document including all reports, emails, correspondence, memorandum,
pictures, insurance provisions, and checks/drafts, which the Defendant relied on to
deny coverage for the Loss.
35. Every document including all reports, emails, correspondence, memorandum,
9.
pictures, insurance provisions, and checks/drafts, which supports the Defendant’s
denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs as a result of the Loss.
In pertinent part, Plaintiffs’ Request for Interrogatory numbers: 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13,
14, 15, and 16 reads as follows:
3.
In reference to the Defendant’s denial of the Claim, or any part of the Claim,
please state:
The date the decision to deny the claim, denial of payment as requested by the
Plaintiffs or any part thereof, was made.
Identify each person who participated in the decision to deny the Claim, denial of
payment as requested by the Plaintiffs, or any part thereof.
Describe each and every fact upon which you relied in forming the basis for your
denial t of the Claim, denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs, or any part
thereof.
Identify each document sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs detailing the
reasons why the Defendant denied part of the Plaintiffs’ claim and denied
payment as requested by the Plaintiffs, or any part thereof.
State the location, including, page(s), line(s) and paragraph number (s), and the
exact language contained in the Policy, which you used to base your decision to
deny coverage for the Claim, denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs, or
any part thereof.
Identify every person who had any role in working on or adjusting the Claim. This
interrogatory seeks the name of every employee or agent of Defendant who had
anything to do with the claim, including, for example, adjusters, engineers, branch
claims examiners, all claims managers and claims supervisors at any level,
executive officers of the company, and members of any review committee or claims
committee.
Identify each person identified in your answer to the preceding interrogatory who
is no longer employed with or an agent of Defendant, please state the date their
affiliation with you ended, and their last known contact information including but
not limited to: phone numbers, email addresses, and physical addresses.
PAGE 4 OF 10
SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC
1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-10558. Identify all persons (other than the Defendant) believed or known by you, your
agents or attorneys to have knowledge conceming any of the issues raised by the
pleadings, specifying the subject matter about which witnesses have knowledge and
state whether you have obtained any statements (oral, written or recorded) from any
of said witnesses, list the dates any such witness statements were taken, by whom
any such witness were taken and who has the present possession, custody and
control of any such statements.
9. Identify all persons who, on the Defendant’s behalf have any way participated in
the investigation, evaluation, adjusting or handling of the Claim involved hereto
and specify the nature of the participation for each and every such person and give
the time period during which they participated.
10. For each decision that was made that the Claim, or any part thereof, was allegedly
not covered under the Policy, please state the date you first decided that the Claim,
or any part thereof, was not covered and the names and address and phone number
and the dates of involvement of each and every person that knows any information
concerning the answer to this interrogatory.
13. With reference to each of the affirmative defenses raised in the Lawsuit, please
describe each and every fact upon which you rely to substantiate such affirmative
defense, including identification of all witnesses to each such fact.
14. Please detail each and every reason for every paragraph you denied in the
Complaint.
15. For any Request for Admissions served on Defendant by the Plaintiffs (as of the
date you received this interrogatory) for which Defendant denied the truth of the
statement, provide the following for each:
a. All facts that support the denial:
b. Identify all documents that support the denial:
c. All witnesses possessing knowledge that supports Defendant’s denial of the
Request for Admission.
16. Please describe why you did not issue payment for the Loss.
10. _ Refer to the page and line of any and all written guidelines you used in the claims
handling process that justify the investigation and claims handling such as was conducted with
regards to the claims presented by the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs request that Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs’ First Request for
Production to Defendant, to request numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, and 35, and Defendant’s objection to Plaintiffs’ First
PAGE 5 OF 10
SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC
1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 « Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-1055Set of Interrogatories, to interrogatory numbers: 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16, be overruled
since the requests and interrogatory are limited in scope to the issues present in this lawsuit. Thus,
the requests and interrogatory are not overly broad, vague, confusing, ambiguous, irrelevant and
do seek documents that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Moreover, the requests and interrogatory do not seek documents protected by the
attomey-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. A party withholding relevant evidence on
a claim of privilege bears the burden of demonstrating its applicability. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins.
Co. v. Harmon, 580 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hess, 814
So. 2d 1240 (Fla. Sth DCA 2002). As such, when the “work product” privilege is asserted the
party resisting discovery must show that the materials withheld were prepared “in anticipation of
litigation.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3); Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Lanier, 800 So. 2d 689, 690
(Fla. Ist DCA 2001).
Defendant has made no showing that the documents requested, information, and/or mental
impressions were prepared in anticipation of litigation, as opposed to part of an “investigation
conducted during the normal business of evaluating the claim,” the documents appear clearly
subject to production. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 580 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA
1991) (“[wJhile petitioner claims that much of what was requested is work product, there is no
showing whether the materials in question were prepared in anticipation of litigation with
respondents or were investigations conducted during the normal business of evaluating the claim
made by respondents, petitioner’s insured”); Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kaufinan, 885 So. 2d
905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (stating that if an insurance carrier is objecting to discovery on the basis
of work-product privilege “maintains the burden to show that the materials were compiled in
response to some event which foreseeably could be made the basis of a claim against the
insurer”); Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Associates, Inc., 444 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla.
PAGE 6 OF 10
SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC
1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 « Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-10554th DCA 1984) (stating that work product privilege attaches only to material prepared by insurer
“in contemplation of litigation,” not as part of investigation conducted in the “ordinary course of
business.”)
While an insurer’s “claims file” may often contain “work product,” and even may
generally not be discoverable in a first party breach of contract case, “such a finding is not
automatic.” Marshalls of MA. Inc. v. Minsal, 932 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Every
document generated as part of an insurer’s adjustment of a claim is no more “work product” than
is every document generated in connection with the ordinary activities of any other business. As
the Fourth District Court observed:
We must not forget that the work product doctrine was created as a litigation
privilege. It was never meant to apply to ordinary, routine, business-as-usual
communications. That obviously means that it was not intended to protect the
general foreseeability of being sued in the course of business-something HMOs
routinely face. Hence, we think, at a minimum, a claim of work product
protection requires that a specific litigation matter can be reasonably anticipated
as a result of an occurrence or circumstance — such as an act giving rise to the
accrual of a cause of action.
Neighborhood Health P’ship, Inc. v. Peter F. Merkle M.D., P.A., 8 So. 3d 1180, 1184 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2009).
Like every other litigant, an insurance company withholding evidence on a claim of work
product privilege must show that the material was prepared “in contemplation of litigation,” see
Turtle Reef Associates, 444 So. 2d at 596, and “the mere general likelihood of litigation in the
corporation’s ordinary conduct of business is not enough for a claim of work product protection.”
Neighborhood Health P’ship, Inc., 8 So. 3d at 1184. Rather, “there must be some specific matter
reasonably indicating litigation beyond the general business prospects of eventually being sued.”
Jd. The suggestion that an insured’s “claims file” is always “protected” in a first party breach of
contract case and only “discoverable” in a bad faith action is a gross oversimplification.
Documents in an insurance carrier’s file — like documents in any litigant’s file — that are relevant
or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence are discoverable unless,
PAGE 7 OF 10
SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC
1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 « Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-1055and only unless, privileged. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1).
Recently, the Third District Court of Appeal stated:
We do observe, however, that counsel for both parties in this case referred to a
“claims file privilege” during the hearing on Homeowners Choice’s motion for a
protective order. There is no such privilege by that designation in the cited cases
or Florida’s Rules of Procedure or Evidence Code. Thus, a specifically-articulated
document request for “photographs of the alleged property damage” may require
either (a) production of such photographs, or (b) disclosure on a privilege log with
a specifically-articulated basis for protection from discovery, even if those
photographs have been filed with other non-discoverable, claim-related documents
in the insurer’s “claims file” and coverage remains in dispute. We further observe
that the Fourth District adopted a more specific approach to the various types of
records that may be in an insurer’s claims file in State Farm Florida Insurance Co.
vy. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (recognizing that an insured
may, in a specific case and as to a specific record in an insurer’s claims file,
establish the necessity/good cause exception to the work product doctrine as
provided by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)).
Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Avila, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D885 (Fla. 3d DCA
Apr. 25, 2018)
Even if this Court finds that the documents the Plaintiffs are seeking is work-product, this
Court should find the Plaintiffs had a substantial need for these documents and are presented with
undue hardship in obtaining them. See Alachua General Hospital v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So.
2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. Ist DCA 1981) (citing Goldstein v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company,
118 So.2d 253, 255 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1960)). The Plaintiffs will be substantially prejudiced if this
Court sustains the Defendant’s objections to the production of the above- mentioned information
because the Plaintiffs do not have any other possible way to obtain the same or similar documents
or information from a different source. The Defendant is attempting to hide behind the shield of
the work product privilege. Sustaining the Defendant’s objections will only aid the Defendant
engage in “legal gymnastics.” Boecher, 733 So. 2d at 995 (citing Serf Drugs, Inc., 236 So. 2d
at 111). Therefore, the Court should overrule the Defendant’s objections and find that the
Plaintiffs is entitled to said information.
Furthermore, the Defendant improperly objects to and then answers or produces
PAGE 8 OF 10
SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC
1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 « Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-1055documents. “[S]uch objections and answer preserve nothing and serve only to waste the time and
resources of the parties and the court.” (quoting Consumer Elecs. Ass’n v. Compras and Buyes
Magazine, Inc., No. 08-21085-Civ, 2008 WL 4327253, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2008). The
Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production, and Plaintiffs’ First Set of
Interrogatories for which documents are produced and questions answered, leave the Plaintiffs
uncertain whether the requests have been fully answered. Additionally, “[w]henever an answer
accompanies an objection, the objection is deemed waived. . .” Tardif v. People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, No. 2:09-cv-537-FtM-29SPC, 2011 WL 1627165, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr.29,
2011). As such, the Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, and
Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production should be considered waived and this Court should enter an
order overruling said objections. See Jd.
Pursuant to the above, this Court should overrule the above Defendant’s objections and
compel the production of the information responsive to the above requests.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request that this Court overrule Defendant’s objections to
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production to Defendant, to request numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, and 35, and Defendant’s
objection to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, to interrogatory numbers: 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13,
14, 15, and 16 and any other relief this Court deems just and equitable.
(CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON THE NEXT PAGE]
PAGE 9 OF 10
SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC
1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 « Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-1055CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished via e-filing to:
G Cameron Colville, Esq., of UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO., at
upciceservice02@universalproperty.com; cw0618@universalproperty.com;
gc0304@universalproperty.com; on this 29" day of October, 2020.
SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC
1200 NW 78" Avenue, Suite 302
Miami, Florida 33126
Tel: (305) 735-3966
Fax: (305) 440-1055
Primary Email: eservice@silverbergbrito.com
Secondary Email: dalyz@silverbergbrito.com
By: 4s/Dalyz Limia
Gisel Brito, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 90925
Dalyz Limia, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 1017895
PAGE 10 0F 10
SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC
1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 « Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-1055Exhibit “A”IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17™
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
MITCHELLE R ORDONEZ AND CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656
DOREEN B ORDONEZ,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
/
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY’S NOTICE OF
SERVING VERIFIED ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Defendant, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”), hereby files
its Notice that it has served its Verified Answers to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, served
with the Summons and Complaint
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via E-
Service to: Gisel Brito, Esq., SULVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC (eservice@silverbergbrito.com;
gisel@silverbergbrito.com) on the __'" day of January, 2020.
Attorney for Defendant
Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co.
PO Box 9388
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310
Telephone: 954-958-3319
Toll-Free: 1-833-658-8594 (Judges Only)
Facsimile: 954-958-1262
By:_/s/ Ashley Joseph
Ashley Joseph, Esq.
Florida Bar No, 123853
For Service of Court Documents only:
Primary: upciceservice02@universalproperty.com
Secondary: mm0107@universalproperty.com
Tertiary: vw1210@universalproperty.comCASE NO.: CACE-19-021656
Page 2 of 13
VERIFIED ANSWERS TO FIRST INTERROGATORIES
1. Please state the name, title, current business address, and phone number of all persons
answering or assisting with the answering of this set of interrogatories.
ANSWER:
Camille Wilson
Claims Examiner
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company
1110 W. Commercial Blvd.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
With the assistance of:
Ashley Joseph, Esq.
Associate General Counsel
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company
1110 W. Commercial Blvd.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
2. Please state the date that the Defendant first received notice from the Plaintiff for a claim
of benefits under the Policy for property damages as described in the Complaint in this
lawsuit.
ANSWER:
On June 3, 2019 Plaintiffs’ counsel, SILVERBERG & BRITO, PLLC., reported purported
damage to the insured property due to an allegedly failed drain system, claimed to have
occurred on April 5, 2019.
3. In reference to the Defendant's denial of the Plaintiffs claim for benefits under the Policy,
please state:
a. The date the decision to deny the claim, denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs
or any part thereof, was made.
b. Identify each person who participated in the decision to deny the Plaintiff's claim,
denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs, or any part thereof.
c. Describe each and every fact upon which you relied in forming the basis for your denial
of the claim, denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs, or any part thereof.
d. Identify each document sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff detailing the reasons why
the Defendant denied part of the Plaintiffs’ claim and denied payment as requested by
the Plaintiffs, or any part thereof.
e. State the location, including, page(s), line(s) and paragraph number (s), and the exact
language contained in the Policy, which you used to base your decision to denyCASE NO.: CACE-19-021656
Page 3 of 13
coverage of the Claim, denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs, or any part
thereof.
ANSWER:
(a-e) Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter,
time and lacks specificity. The Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the
attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. The Interrogatory seeks information that is
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory
seeks confidential-proprietary information/documents. Further, an insurer’s claim file
and/or an insurer’s underwriting file and/or claim handling procedures and guidelines is/are
not within the scope of a first party claim for insurance benefits. See Homeowner's Choice
Property and Casualty Ins. Co, Inc. v. Avila, 248 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); State
Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. Premier Diagnostic Centers, LLC, 185 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA
2016), denied review, 2016 WL 3002460 (Fla. May 25, 2016); Castle Key Ins. Co. v.
Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Kramer, 41
So. 3d 313 (Fla. 4"" DCA 2010); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Comp. v. O’Hearn,
975 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); State Farm Florida Ins., Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 24
389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-
Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); American
Reliance Ins. Comp., v. Rosemont Condominium Homeowners Association, 671 So. 2d 250
(Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1995); American Bankers Insurance of Florida v. Wheeler, 711 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5h
DCA 1998); Nationwide Insurance Company of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla 2d
DCA 2011); Homeowner’s Choice Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Inc. v. Mahady, 2019
WL 3938885 (Fla. 4" DCA August 21, 2019). See also Privilege Log for privileged
documents. The Interrogatory seeks notes, mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions
of the attorney, which constitutes privileged opinion work product. See Smith v. Fla.
Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 34 DCA 1994); State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257
(Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Notwithstanding said objection and not waiving same, see Universal’s Answer and
Defenses to Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the Policy, which speak for themselves
and set forth the facts upon which support rests, including but not limited to: due to
Plaintiffs’ material breaches in complying with all terms, conditions, definitions,
limitations, exclusions and endorsements contained within the Policy and all applicable
Florida Statutes, Universal’s investigation was irrevocably prejudiced. In addition, all
relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ request and regarding the
claim subject in this matter will be provided under separate cover, pursuant to Fl. R. Civ.
P. 1.340(c), including but not limited to, correspondence dated June 13, 2019, July 9, 2019,
July 26, 2019, August 28, 2019 and denial correspondence dated October 28, 2019.CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656
Page 4 of 13
4. Identify each person, by name, address, phone number and position, whom on behalf of
the Defendant, inspected the Plaintiffs Property in reference to the claim, including his or
her field of expertise and the date of each inspection.
ANSWER:
Cristiano Nicolucci
Field Adjuster
Nicolucci & Partners, Inc.
304 Indian Trace, #333
Weston, FL 33326
Cristano Nicolucci, a licensed adjuster, served as field adjuster on Universal’s behalf
regarding the subject claim. Cristano Nicolucci inspected the insured property on June 17,
2019. Present was the Insureds’ counsel, Jacqueline F. Rosado of SILVERBERG|BRITO,
PLLC, and the Insureds’ loss consultant, Jogly Garcia.
5. Identify every person who had any role in working on or adjusting the Claim. This
interrogatory seeks the name of every employee or agent of Defendant who had anything
to do with the claim, including, for example, adjusters, engineers, branch claims examiners,
all claims managers and claims supervisors at any level, executive officers of the company,
and members of any review committee or claims committee.
ANSWER:
Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter, time and
lacks specificity. The Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-
client and/or work-product privileges. The Interrogatory seeks information that is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory
seeks confidential-proprietary information/documents. Further, an insurer’s claim file
and/or an insurer’s underwriting file and/or claim handling procedures and guidelines is/are
not within the scope of a first party claim for insurance benefits. See Homeowner's Choice
Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Ine. vy. Avila, 248 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); State
Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. Premier Diagnostic Centers, LLC, 185 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 34 DCA
2016), denied review, 2016 WL 3002460 (Fla. May 25, 2016); Castle Key Ins. Co. v.
Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Kramer, 41
So. 3d 313 (Fla. 4" DCA 2010); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins, Comp. v. O’Hearn,
975 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); State Farm Florida Ins., Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d
389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-
Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); American
Reliance Ins. Comp., v. Rosemont Condominium Homeowners Association, 671 So. 2d 250
(Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1995); American Bankers Insurance of Florida v. Wheeler, 711 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. sm
DCA 1998); Nationwide Insurance Company of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla 2d
DCA 2011); Homeowner’s Choice Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Inc. v. Mahady, 2019CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656
Page 5 of 13
WL 3938885 (Fla. 4" DCA August 21, 2019). See also Privilege Log for privileged
documents. The Interrogatory seeks notes, mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions
of the attorney, which constitutes privileged opinion work product. See Smith v. Fla.
Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Stare v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257
(Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Notwithstanding said objection and not waiving same, upon information and belief, the
following persons on Universal’s behalf may have knowledge regarding the subject claim:
Eduardo Campos
Claims Examiner
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company
1110 W. Commercial Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
Eduardo Campos served as claims examiner on Universal’s behalf regarding the subject
claim.
Cristiano Nicolucci
Field Adjuster
Nicolucci & Partners, Inc.
304 Indian Trace, #333
Weston, FL 33326
Cristano Nicolucci served as field adjuster on Universal’s behalf regarding the subject
claim. Cristano Nicolucci inspected the insured property on June 17, 2019.
. Identify each person identified in your answer to the preceding interrogatory who is no
longer employed with or an agent of Defendant, please state the date their affiliation with
you ended, and their last known contact information including but not limited to: phone
numbers, email addresses, and physical addresses.
ANSWER:
See Universal’s response to Interrogatory number 5 above in its entirety.
. Identify each written estimate for repair or replacement, including the amount set forth in
each estimate, which has been provided to the Defendant by the Plaintiff in reference to
the Plaintiff’s claim for benefits under the Policy.
ANSWER:
All relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ request and regarding the
claim subject in this matter will be provided under separate cover, pursuant to FL. R. Civ.
P. 1.340(c).CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656
Page 6 of 13
8. Identify all persons (other than the Defendant) believed or known by you, your agents or
attorneys to have knowledge concerning any of the issues raised by the pleadings,
specifying the subject matter about which witnesses have knowledge and state whether you
have obtained any statements (oral, written or recorded) from any of said witnesses, list
the dates any such witness statements were taken, by whom any such witness were taken
and who has the present possession, custody and control of any such statements.
ANSWER:
Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter, time and
lacks specificity. The Interrogatory seeks information/documents within Plaintiffs’
knowledge and possession. The Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the
attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. The Interrogatory seeks information that is
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory
seeks confidential-proprietary information/documents. Further, an insurer’s claim file
and/or an insurer’s underwriting file and/or claim handling procedures and guidelines is/are
not within the scope of a first party claim for insurance benefits. See Homeowner's Choice
Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Inc. v. Avila, 248 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); State
Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. Premier Diagnostic Centers, LLC, 185 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA
2016), denied review, 2016 WL 3002460 (Fla. May 25, 2016); Castle Key Ins. Co. v.
Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Kramer, 41
So. 3d 313 (Fla. 4" DCA 2010); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Comp. v. O’Hearn,
975 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); State Farm Florida Ins., Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d
389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-
Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); American
Reliance Ins. Comp., v. Rosemont Condominium Homeowners Association, 671 So. 2d 250
(Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1995); American Bankers Insurance of Florida v. Wheeler, 711 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. sth
DCA 1998); Nationwide Insurance Company of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla 2d
DCA 2011); Homeowner’s Choice Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Inc. v. Mahady, 2019
WL 3938885 (Fla. 4" DCA August 21, 2019). See also Privilege Log for privileged
documents. The Interrogatory seeks notes, mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions
of the attorney, which constitutes privileged opinion work product. See Smith v. Fla.
Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257
(Fla. 3d DCA 1986),
Notwithstanding said objection and not waiving same, upon information and belief, the
following persons or entities (other than Universal) may have knowledge regarding the
subject claim:
Mitchelle R. Ordonez
Insured
610 SW 69" Way
Pembroke Pines, FL 33023CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656
Page 7 of 13
A telephonic recorded statement of Mitchell Ordonez was conducted on September 11,
2019. Present was Insureds’ counsel, Steven F. of SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC.
Doreen B. Ordonez
Insured
610 SW 69" Way
Pembroke Pines, FL 33023
Lean Alexander
Insureds’ Adult Child residing at the insured property
610 SW 69" Way
Pembroke Pines, FL 33023
Ms. Beltran
Insureds’ Mother-in-law residing at the insured property
610 SW 69" Way
Pembroke Pines, FL 33023
Steven F.
Present during telephonic recorded statement of Mitchelle R. Ordonez
SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC.
1200 NW 78" Ave.
Suite 302
Miami, FL 33126
Jacqueline F. Rosado
Present during Universal’s inspection of the insured property
SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC.
1200 NW 78" Ave.
Suite 302
Miami, FL 33126
Xanathy Gonzalez
SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC.
1200 NW 78" Ave.
Suite 302
Miami, FL 33126
Specialty Public Adjuster, Inc.
2441 NW 93" Avenue
Suite 102A
Doral, FL 33172
Jogly Garcia
Insureds’ Loss Consultant — present at Universal’s inspection
Specialty Public Adjuster, Inc.10.
CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656
Page 8 of 13
2441 NW 93" Avenue
Suite 102A
Doral, FL 33172
Hydro Restoration, LLC.
15358 SW 51S Manor
Davie, FL 33331
Javier Delgado
Technician
Hydro Restoration, LLC.
15358 SW 51S Manor
Davie, FL 33331
R & I Plumbing Service, Corp.
7898 NW 174 Terrace
Miami, FL 33015
Monopoly Plumbing
11967 SW 26" Court
Miramar, FL 33025
In addition, discovery is ongoing, and Universal therefore reserves the right to amend this
Response.
Identify all persons who, on the Defendant's behalf have any way participated in the
investigation, evaluation, adjusting or handling of the Claim involved hereto and specify
the nature of the participation for each and every such person and give the time period
during which they participated.
ANSWER:
Objection. Duplicative. See Universal’s response to Interrogatory number 5 above in its
entirety.
For each decision that was made that the Claim or any part thereof, was allegedly not
covered under the Policy, please state the date you first decided that the Claim or any
portion thereof, was not covered and the names and address and phone number and the
dates of involvement of each and every person that knows any information concerning
these matters.
ANSWER:
Objection. Duplicative. See Universal’s response to Interrogatory number 3 above in its
entirety. Further, see Universal’s responses to Interrogatories numbers 5 and 8 above for,ll.
12.
CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656
Page 9 of 13
upon information and belief, persons or entities who may have knowledge regarding the
subject claim.
Refer to the page and line of any and all written guidelines you used in the claims handling
process that justify the investigation and claims handling such as was conducted with
regards to the Claims.
ANSWER:
Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter, time and
lacks specificity as to the issues framed by the pleadings. The Interrogatory is vague,
ambiguous, unduly burdensome and harassing in nature. The Interrogatory seeks
information that is protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. The
Interrogatory seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory seeks confidential-proprietary
information/documents. Further, an insurer’s claim file and/or an insurer’s underwriting
file and/or claim handling procedures and guidelines is/are not within the scope of a first
party claim for insurance benefits. See Homeowner’s Choice Property and Casualty Ins.
Co. Inc. y. Avila, 248 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. Premier
Diagnostic Centers, LLC, 185 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), denied review, 2016 WL
3002460 (Fla. May 25, 2016); Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA
2013); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Kramer, 41 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 4 DCA 2010); State
Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Comp. v. O’Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 24 DCA 2008);
State Farm Florida Ins., Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Scottsdale
Insurance Co. y. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc.,
813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); American Reliance Ins. Comp., v. Rosemont
Condominium Homeowners Association, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State Farm
Fire and Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 34 DCA 1995); American Bankers
Insurance of Florida v. Wheeler, 711 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5tt DCA 1998); Nationwide
Insurance Company of Florida y. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla 2d DCA 2011);
Homeowner's Choice Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Inc. v. Mahady, 2019 WL 3938885
(Fla. 4" DCA August 21, 2019). See also Privilege Log for privileged documents. The
Interrogatory seeks notes, mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions of the attorney,
which constitutes privileged opinion work product. See Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co.,
632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Please describe all requests made by the Defendant upon the Plaintiff (ie., requests for
examination under oath, information, documents, sworn proofs of loss, etc.,) in reference
to the Claim and the dates made.
ANSWER:
All relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ request and regarding the
claim subject in this matter will be provided under separate cover, pursuant to Fl. R. Civ.13.
14,
CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656
Page 10 of 13
P, 1.340(c), including but not limited to, correspondence dated June 13, 2019, July 9, 2019,
July 26, 2019, August 28, 2019 and denial correspondence dated October 28, 2019.
With reference to each of your affirmative defenses raised in the Lawsuit, please describe
each and every fact upon which you rely to substantiate such affirmative defense, including
identification of all witnesses to each such fact.
ANSWER:
Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter, time and
lacks specificity. The Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-
client and/or work-product privileges. The Interrogatory seeks notes, mental impressions,
conclusions, and opinions of the attorney, which constitutes privileged opinion work
product. See Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State
y. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Additionally, these type of form
Interrogatories are inappropriate as discovery is not intended to compel an adversary to
investigate a case on their behalf. See Cabrera v. Evans, 322 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1975).
Notwithstanding said objection and not waiving same, see Universal’s Answer and
Defenses to Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the Policy, which speak for themselves
and set forth the facts upon which support rests, including but not limited to: due to
Plaintiffs’ material breaches in complying with all terms, conditions, definitions,
limitations, exclusions and endorsements contained within the Policy and all applicable
Florida Statutes, Universal’s investigation was irrevocably prejudiced. In addition, all
relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ request and regarding the
claim subject in this matter will be provided under separate cover, pursuant to Fl. R. Civ.
P. 1.340(c), including but not limited to, correspondence dated June 13, 2019, July 9, 2019,
July 26, 2019, August 28, 2019 and denial correspondence dated October 28, 2019. Further,
see Universal’s responses to Interrogatories numbers 5 and 8 above for, upon information
and belief, persons or entities who may have knowledge regarding the subject claim.
Please detail each and every reason for every paragraph you denied in the Complaint.
ANSWER:
Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter, time and
lacks specificity. The Interrogatory seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory seeks information that is
protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. The Interrogatory seeks
notes, mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions of the attorney, which constitutes
privileged opinion work product. See Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696
(Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Additionally,
these type of form Interrogatories are inappropriate as discovery is not intended to compel15.
CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656
Page 11 of 13
an adversary to investigate a case on their behalf. See Cabrera v. Evans, 322 So, 2d 559,
560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Notwithstanding said objection and not waiving same, see Universal’s Answer and
Defenses to Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the Policy, which speak for themselves
and set forth the facts upon which support rests, including but not limited to: due to
Plaintiffs’ material breaches in complying with all terms, conditions, definitions,
limitations, exclusions and endorsements contained within the Policy and all applicable
Florida Statutes, Universal’s investigation was irrevocably prejudiced. In addition, all
relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ request and regarding the
claim subject in this matter will be provided under separate cover, pursuant to Fl. R. Civ.
P. 1.340(c), including but not limited to, correspondence dated June 13, 2019, July 9, 2019,
July 26, 2019, August 28, 2019 and denial correspondence dated October 28, 2019.
For any Request for Admissions served on the Defendant by the Plaintiffs (as of the date
you received this interrogatory) for which Defendant denied the truth of the statement,
provide the following for each:
a. All facts that support the denial;
b. Identify all documents that support the denial;
c. All witnesses possessing knowledge that supports Defendant’s denial of the Request for
Admission.
ANSWER:
Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter, time and
lacks specificity. The Interrogatory seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory seeks information that is
protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. The Interrogatory seeks
notes, mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions of the attorney, which constitutes
privileged opinion work product. See Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696
(Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Additionally,
these type of form Interrogatories are inappropriate as discovery is not intended to compel
an adversary to investigate a case on their behalf. See Cabrera v. Evans, 322 So. 2d 559,
560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Notwithstanding said objection and not waiving same, see Universal’s Responses to
Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admissions, which speak for themselves. In addition, all
relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ request and regarding the
claim subject in this matter will be provided under separate cover, pursuant to Fl. R. Civ.
P. 1.340(c). Further, see Universal’s responses to Interrogatories numbers 5 and 8 above
for, upon information and belief, persons or entities who may have knowledge regarding
the subject claimCASE NO.: CACE-19-021656
Page 12 of 13
16. Please describe why you did not issue payment for the Loss.
ANSWER:
Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter, time and
lacks specificity. The Interrogatory utilizes an improper predicate as it presupposes that
coverage for the Plaintiffs was warranted and/or entitled under the subject Policy. The
Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product
privileges. Further, an insurer’s claim file and/or an insurer’s underwriting file and/or claim
handling procedures and guidelines is/are not within the scope of a first party claim for
insurance benefits. See Homeowner's Choice Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Inc. v. Avila,
248 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. Premier Diagnostic
Centers, LLC, 185 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), denied review, 2016 WL 3002460 (Fla.
May 25, 2016); Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); State
Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Kramer, 41 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 4"" DCA 2010); State Farm Mutual
Automobile Ins. Comp. v. O’Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); State Farm
Florida Ins., Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Scottsdale Insurance
Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d
250 (Fla. 34 DCA 2002); American Reliance Ins. Comp., v. Rosemont Condominium
Homeowners Association, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State Farm Fire and Cas.
Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); American Bankers Insurance of
Florida v. Wheeler, 711 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5" DCA 1998); Nationwide Insurance Company
of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla 2d DCA 2011); Homeowner’s Choice Property
and Casualty Ins. Co. Inc. v. Mahady, 2019 WL 3938885 (Fla. 4" DCA August 21, 2019).
See also Privilege Log for privileged documents. The Interrogatory seeks notes, mental
impressions, conclusions, and opinions of the attorney, which constitutes privileged
opinion work product. See Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA
1994); State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Additionally, these type of form
Interrogatories are inappropriate as discovery is not intended to compel an adversary to
investigate a case on their behalf. See Cabrera v. Evans, 322 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1975).
Notwithstanding said objection and not waiving same, see Universal’s Answer and
Defenses to Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the Policy, which speak for themselves
and set forth the facts upon which support rests, including but not limited to: due to
Plaintiffs’ material breaches in complying with all terms, conditions, definitions,
limitations, exclusions and endorsements contained with
Preview
Filing # 115867783 E-Filed 10/29/2020 08:34:27 PM MITCHELLE R ORDONEZ, an individual, and IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH DOREEN B ORDONEZ, an individual, JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA Plaintiffs, ie GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a _ Florida governmental entity, CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656 Defendant. / MOTION TO OVERRULE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ T FOR PRODUCTION, AND INTERROGATORIES COME NOW, the Plaintiffs, MITCHELLE R ORDONEZ, and DOREEN B ORDONEZ (collectively the “Plaintiffs”), by and through the undersigned counsel file this Motion to Overrule Defendant’s, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (the “Defendant”), Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production, and Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, and in support thereof state as follows: 1. On or about October 28, 2019, the Plaintiffs served the Defendant with the Complaint and with Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production to Defendant, and Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant. 2. On or about January 3, 2020, Defendant served the Plaintiffs with Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production, and Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories. A true and correct copy of Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production, and Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “A.” 3. In response to the Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production to Defendant, Defendant made specific objections to request numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, and 35. PAGE 1 OF 10 SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC 1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 « Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-1055 *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 10/29/2020 08:34:26 PM.****4. Inresponse to the Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant, Defendant made specific objections to interrogatory numbers: 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and16. 5. According to Rule 1.340 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, a party must either answer or object to each Interrogatory and said objection must be stated with particularity. As such, Defendant’s objections are improper and should be overruled. Additionally, Defendant has waived said objections by filing these responses in violation of this Court’s orders. 6. In pertinent part, Plaintiffs’ Request for Production numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 1. 10. ll. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, and 35 read as follows: Any and all repair bills and/or estimates and/or appraisals for the Property involved in the Lawsuit. Any and all photographs of any home involved in this litigation showing property damage. Any and all photographs of the Plaintiffs’ Property pre and post the Loss identified in the Complaint. Any and all photographs of Plaintiffs’ Property as identified in the Complaint taken prior to the date of loss as identified in the Complaint. Any other photographs of anything or person which is relevant and material to the claim of the Plaintiffs or defense(s) of the Defendant. Any diagram, chart, map or description of the Plaintiffs’ Property as identified in the Complaint. Any and all written or recorded statements taken of the Plaintiffs. Any and all written or recorded statements taken of any witnesses. Any report of any person hired by the Defendant that is expected to testify at trial as an expert. A copy of any and all insurance policies of Defendant that were in effect on the date of the Loss. Any other thing, document or tangible piece of evidence material to this Lawsuit which Defendant or defense counsel tentatively plan to introduce into evidence or make reference to at the trial of this cause. PAGE 2 OF 10 SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC 1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-105512. The original or copies of all releases and hold harmless agreements to which the Defendant is a party which cover the subject loss identified in the Complaint. 14. A copy of all records indicating receipt of premiums Plaintiffs paid for the insurance Policy at issue in this action. 16. Every document that memorializes or otherwise reflects any communication made by Plaintiffs to Defendant or by Defendant to Plaintiffs. 17. Every statement in your possession, whether written or recorded, which statement was given by Plaintiffs to any person(s). 18. Notes of any interviews or phone conversations between anyone and Plaintiffs. 19. Every other recorded statement pertaining in any manner to the adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim or other issues raised in this action. 20. Every photograph, film, videotape, diagram, and other such item depicting Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ property. 21. Every bulletin, manual, or other similar claims-related publication that you distributed to any adjuster, engineer, or other employee/agent who was involved in Plaintiffs’ claim. 23. A true and complete copy of the underwriting file of the Property. 24. Every document, including correspondence, exchanged between you and any governmental or quasi-governmental entity in connection with Plaintiffs’ claim. 25. Every price list that has been in effect for the geographic area encompassing Plaintiffs’ property for the time period September 10, 2016, until the present date. 26. Every book, depreciation or other table, guide, or other such document relied upon by you in determining the value of Plaintiffs’ property or the valuation of damage to that property. 28. A copy of every adjuster’s estimate in your possession, custody, or control relating to Plaintiffs’ property. 29.Every other document, including all reports, emails, correspondence, and checks/drafts, exchanged between Defendant and anyone else, or internally between Defendant’s employees or agents, which document related in any way to Plaintiffs’ claim. This request specifically encompasses every claim-related “document” in your possession not produced in response to an earlier request. It should not be construed to duplicate earlier requests or to require redundant production. It is specifically tailored to reach only documents not addressed by your responses to (or production in response to) earlier requests. 32. Every document, including all reports, emails, correspondence, memorandum, PAGE 3 OF 10 SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC 1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 + Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-1055pictures, insurance provisions, and checks/drafts, which support your denial of the subject Claim, or any part of the Claim. 34. Every document including all reports, emails, correspondence, memorandum, pictures, insurance provisions, and checks/drafts, which the Defendant relied on to deny coverage for the Loss. 35. Every document including all reports, emails, correspondence, memorandum, 9. pictures, insurance provisions, and checks/drafts, which supports the Defendant’s denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs as a result of the Loss. In pertinent part, Plaintiffs’ Request for Interrogatory numbers: 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16 reads as follows: 3. In reference to the Defendant’s denial of the Claim, or any part of the Claim, please state: The date the decision to deny the claim, denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs or any part thereof, was made. Identify each person who participated in the decision to deny the Claim, denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs, or any part thereof. Describe each and every fact upon which you relied in forming the basis for your denial t of the Claim, denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs, or any part thereof. Identify each document sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs detailing the reasons why the Defendant denied part of the Plaintiffs’ claim and denied payment as requested by the Plaintiffs, or any part thereof. State the location, including, page(s), line(s) and paragraph number (s), and the exact language contained in the Policy, which you used to base your decision to deny coverage for the Claim, denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs, or any part thereof. Identify every person who had any role in working on or adjusting the Claim. This interrogatory seeks the name of every employee or agent of Defendant who had anything to do with the claim, including, for example, adjusters, engineers, branch claims examiners, all claims managers and claims supervisors at any level, executive officers of the company, and members of any review committee or claims committee. Identify each person identified in your answer to the preceding interrogatory who is no longer employed with or an agent of Defendant, please state the date their affiliation with you ended, and their last known contact information including but not limited to: phone numbers, email addresses, and physical addresses. PAGE 4 OF 10 SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC 1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-10558. Identify all persons (other than the Defendant) believed or known by you, your agents or attorneys to have knowledge conceming any of the issues raised by the pleadings, specifying the subject matter about which witnesses have knowledge and state whether you have obtained any statements (oral, written or recorded) from any of said witnesses, list the dates any such witness statements were taken, by whom any such witness were taken and who has the present possession, custody and control of any such statements. 9. Identify all persons who, on the Defendant’s behalf have any way participated in the investigation, evaluation, adjusting or handling of the Claim involved hereto and specify the nature of the participation for each and every such person and give the time period during which they participated. 10. For each decision that was made that the Claim, or any part thereof, was allegedly not covered under the Policy, please state the date you first decided that the Claim, or any part thereof, was not covered and the names and address and phone number and the dates of involvement of each and every person that knows any information concerning the answer to this interrogatory. 13. With reference to each of the affirmative defenses raised in the Lawsuit, please describe each and every fact upon which you rely to substantiate such affirmative defense, including identification of all witnesses to each such fact. 14. Please detail each and every reason for every paragraph you denied in the Complaint. 15. For any Request for Admissions served on Defendant by the Plaintiffs (as of the date you received this interrogatory) for which Defendant denied the truth of the statement, provide the following for each: a. All facts that support the denial: b. Identify all documents that support the denial: c. All witnesses possessing knowledge that supports Defendant’s denial of the Request for Admission. 16. Please describe why you did not issue payment for the Loss. 10. _ Refer to the page and line of any and all written guidelines you used in the claims handling process that justify the investigation and claims handling such as was conducted with regards to the claims presented by the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs request that Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production to Defendant, to request numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, and 35, and Defendant’s objection to Plaintiffs’ First PAGE 5 OF 10 SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC 1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 « Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-1055Set of Interrogatories, to interrogatory numbers: 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16, be overruled since the requests and interrogatory are limited in scope to the issues present in this lawsuit. Thus, the requests and interrogatory are not overly broad, vague, confusing, ambiguous, irrelevant and do seek documents that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the requests and interrogatory do not seek documents protected by the attomey-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. A party withholding relevant evidence on a claim of privilege bears the burden of demonstrating its applicability. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 580 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hess, 814 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. Sth DCA 2002). As such, when the “work product” privilege is asserted the party resisting discovery must show that the materials withheld were prepared “in anticipation of litigation.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3); Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Lanier, 800 So. 2d 689, 690 (Fla. Ist DCA 2001). Defendant has made no showing that the documents requested, information, and/or mental impressions were prepared in anticipation of litigation, as opposed to part of an “investigation conducted during the normal business of evaluating the claim,” the documents appear clearly subject to production. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 580 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (“[wJhile petitioner claims that much of what was requested is work product, there is no showing whether the materials in question were prepared in anticipation of litigation with respondents or were investigations conducted during the normal business of evaluating the claim made by respondents, petitioner’s insured”); Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kaufinan, 885 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (stating that if an insurance carrier is objecting to discovery on the basis of work-product privilege “maintains the burden to show that the materials were compiled in response to some event which foreseeably could be made the basis of a claim against the insurer”); Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Associates, Inc., 444 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla. PAGE 6 OF 10 SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC 1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 « Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-10554th DCA 1984) (stating that work product privilege attaches only to material prepared by insurer “in contemplation of litigation,” not as part of investigation conducted in the “ordinary course of business.”) While an insurer’s “claims file” may often contain “work product,” and even may generally not be discoverable in a first party breach of contract case, “such a finding is not automatic.” Marshalls of MA. Inc. v. Minsal, 932 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Every document generated as part of an insurer’s adjustment of a claim is no more “work product” than is every document generated in connection with the ordinary activities of any other business. As the Fourth District Court observed: We must not forget that the work product doctrine was created as a litigation privilege. It was never meant to apply to ordinary, routine, business-as-usual communications. That obviously means that it was not intended to protect the general foreseeability of being sued in the course of business-something HMOs routinely face. Hence, we think, at a minimum, a claim of work product protection requires that a specific litigation matter can be reasonably anticipated as a result of an occurrence or circumstance — such as an act giving rise to the accrual of a cause of action. Neighborhood Health P’ship, Inc. v. Peter F. Merkle M.D., P.A., 8 So. 3d 1180, 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Like every other litigant, an insurance company withholding evidence on a claim of work product privilege must show that the material was prepared “in contemplation of litigation,” see Turtle Reef Associates, 444 So. 2d at 596, and “the mere general likelihood of litigation in the corporation’s ordinary conduct of business is not enough for a claim of work product protection.” Neighborhood Health P’ship, Inc., 8 So. 3d at 1184. Rather, “there must be some specific matter reasonably indicating litigation beyond the general business prospects of eventually being sued.” Jd. The suggestion that an insured’s “claims file” is always “protected” in a first party breach of contract case and only “discoverable” in a bad faith action is a gross oversimplification. Documents in an insurance carrier’s file — like documents in any litigant’s file — that are relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence are discoverable unless, PAGE 7 OF 10 SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC 1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 « Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-1055and only unless, privileged. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1). Recently, the Third District Court of Appeal stated: We do observe, however, that counsel for both parties in this case referred to a “claims file privilege” during the hearing on Homeowners Choice’s motion for a protective order. There is no such privilege by that designation in the cited cases or Florida’s Rules of Procedure or Evidence Code. Thus, a specifically-articulated document request for “photographs of the alleged property damage” may require either (a) production of such photographs, or (b) disclosure on a privilege log with a specifically-articulated basis for protection from discovery, even if those photographs have been filed with other non-discoverable, claim-related documents in the insurer’s “claims file” and coverage remains in dispute. We further observe that the Fourth District adopted a more specific approach to the various types of records that may be in an insurer’s claims file in State Farm Florida Insurance Co. vy. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (recognizing that an insured may, in a specific case and as to a specific record in an insurer’s claims file, establish the necessity/good cause exception to the work product doctrine as provided by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)). Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Avila, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D885 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 25, 2018) Even if this Court finds that the documents the Plaintiffs are seeking is work-product, this Court should find the Plaintiffs had a substantial need for these documents and are presented with undue hardship in obtaining them. See Alachua General Hospital v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. Ist DCA 1981) (citing Goldstein v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 118 So.2d 253, 255 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1960)). The Plaintiffs will be substantially prejudiced if this Court sustains the Defendant’s objections to the production of the above- mentioned information because the Plaintiffs do not have any other possible way to obtain the same or similar documents or information from a different source. The Defendant is attempting to hide behind the shield of the work product privilege. Sustaining the Defendant’s objections will only aid the Defendant engage in “legal gymnastics.” Boecher, 733 So. 2d at 995 (citing Serf Drugs, Inc., 236 So. 2d at 111). Therefore, the Court should overrule the Defendant’s objections and find that the Plaintiffs is entitled to said information. Furthermore, the Defendant improperly objects to and then answers or produces PAGE 8 OF 10 SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC 1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 « Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-1055documents. “[S]uch objections and answer preserve nothing and serve only to waste the time and resources of the parties and the court.” (quoting Consumer Elecs. Ass’n v. Compras and Buyes Magazine, Inc., No. 08-21085-Civ, 2008 WL 4327253, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2008). The Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production, and Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories for which documents are produced and questions answered, leave the Plaintiffs uncertain whether the requests have been fully answered. Additionally, “[w]henever an answer accompanies an objection, the objection is deemed waived. . .” Tardif v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, No. 2:09-cv-537-FtM-29SPC, 2011 WL 1627165, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr.29, 2011). As such, the Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, and Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production should be considered waived and this Court should enter an order overruling said objections. See Jd. Pursuant to the above, this Court should overrule the above Defendant’s objections and compel the production of the information responsive to the above requests. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request that this Court overrule Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production to Defendant, to request numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34, and 35, and Defendant’s objection to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, to interrogatory numbers: 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16 and any other relief this Court deems just and equitable. (CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON THE NEXT PAGE] PAGE 9 OF 10 SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC 1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 « Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-1055CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished via e-filing to: G Cameron Colville, Esq., of UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO., at upciceservice02@universalproperty.com; cw0618@universalproperty.com; gc0304@universalproperty.com; on this 29" day of October, 2020. SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC 1200 NW 78" Avenue, Suite 302 Miami, Florida 33126 Tel: (305) 735-3966 Fax: (305) 440-1055 Primary Email: eservice@silverbergbrito.com Secondary Email: dalyz@silverbergbrito.com By: 4s/Dalyz Limia Gisel Brito, Esq. Florida Bar No. 90925 Dalyz Limia, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 1017895 PAGE 10 0F 10 SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC 1200 NW 78" Ave., Suite 302, Miami, FL 33126 « Tel (305) 735-3966 * Fax (305) 440-1055Exhibit “A”IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA MITCHELLE R ORDONEZ AND CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656 DOREEN B ORDONEZ, Plaintiffs, vs. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. / UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY’S NOTICE OF SERVING VERIFIED ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Defendant, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”), hereby files its Notice that it has served its Verified Answers to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, served with the Summons and Complaint CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via E- Service to: Gisel Brito, Esq., SULVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC (eservice@silverbergbrito.com; gisel@silverbergbrito.com) on the __'" day of January, 2020. Attorney for Defendant Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. PO Box 9388 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310 Telephone: 954-958-3319 Toll-Free: 1-833-658-8594 (Judges Only) Facsimile: 954-958-1262 By:_/s/ Ashley Joseph Ashley Joseph, Esq. Florida Bar No, 123853 For Service of Court Documents only: Primary: upciceservice02@universalproperty.com Secondary: mm0107@universalproperty.com Tertiary: vw1210@universalproperty.comCASE NO.: CACE-19-021656 Page 2 of 13 VERIFIED ANSWERS TO FIRST INTERROGATORIES 1. Please state the name, title, current business address, and phone number of all persons answering or assisting with the answering of this set of interrogatories. ANSWER: Camille Wilson Claims Examiner Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company 1110 W. Commercial Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 With the assistance of: Ashley Joseph, Esq. Associate General Counsel Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company 1110 W. Commercial Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 2. Please state the date that the Defendant first received notice from the Plaintiff for a claim of benefits under the Policy for property damages as described in the Complaint in this lawsuit. ANSWER: On June 3, 2019 Plaintiffs’ counsel, SILVERBERG & BRITO, PLLC., reported purported damage to the insured property due to an allegedly failed drain system, claimed to have occurred on April 5, 2019. 3. In reference to the Defendant's denial of the Plaintiffs claim for benefits under the Policy, please state: a. The date the decision to deny the claim, denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs or any part thereof, was made. b. Identify each person who participated in the decision to deny the Plaintiff's claim, denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs, or any part thereof. c. Describe each and every fact upon which you relied in forming the basis for your denial of the claim, denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs, or any part thereof. d. Identify each document sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff detailing the reasons why the Defendant denied part of the Plaintiffs’ claim and denied payment as requested by the Plaintiffs, or any part thereof. e. State the location, including, page(s), line(s) and paragraph number (s), and the exact language contained in the Policy, which you used to base your decision to denyCASE NO.: CACE-19-021656 Page 3 of 13 coverage of the Claim, denial of payment as requested by the Plaintiffs, or any part thereof. ANSWER: (a-e) Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter, time and lacks specificity. The Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. The Interrogatory seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory seeks confidential-proprietary information/documents. Further, an insurer’s claim file and/or an insurer’s underwriting file and/or claim handling procedures and guidelines is/are not within the scope of a first party claim for insurance benefits. See Homeowner's Choice Property and Casualty Ins. Co, Inc. v. Avila, 248 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. Premier Diagnostic Centers, LLC, 185 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), denied review, 2016 WL 3002460 (Fla. May 25, 2016); Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Kramer, 41 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 4"" DCA 2010); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Comp. v. O’Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); State Farm Florida Ins., Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 24 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino- Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); American Reliance Ins. Comp., v. Rosemont Condominium Homeowners Association, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); American Bankers Insurance of Florida v. Wheeler, 711 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5h DCA 1998); Nationwide Insurance Company of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla 2d DCA 2011); Homeowner’s Choice Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Inc. v. Mahady, 2019 WL 3938885 (Fla. 4" DCA August 21, 2019). See also Privilege Log for privileged documents. The Interrogatory seeks notes, mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions of the attorney, which constitutes privileged opinion work product. See Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 34 DCA 1994); State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Notwithstanding said objection and not waiving same, see Universal’s Answer and Defenses to Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the Policy, which speak for themselves and set forth the facts upon which support rests, including but not limited to: due to Plaintiffs’ material breaches in complying with all terms, conditions, definitions, limitations, exclusions and endorsements contained within the Policy and all applicable Florida Statutes, Universal’s investigation was irrevocably prejudiced. In addition, all relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ request and regarding the claim subject in this matter will be provided under separate cover, pursuant to Fl. R. Civ. P. 1.340(c), including but not limited to, correspondence dated June 13, 2019, July 9, 2019, July 26, 2019, August 28, 2019 and denial correspondence dated October 28, 2019.CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656 Page 4 of 13 4. Identify each person, by name, address, phone number and position, whom on behalf of the Defendant, inspected the Plaintiffs Property in reference to the claim, including his or her field of expertise and the date of each inspection. ANSWER: Cristiano Nicolucci Field Adjuster Nicolucci & Partners, Inc. 304 Indian Trace, #333 Weston, FL 33326 Cristano Nicolucci, a licensed adjuster, served as field adjuster on Universal’s behalf regarding the subject claim. Cristano Nicolucci inspected the insured property on June 17, 2019. Present was the Insureds’ counsel, Jacqueline F. Rosado of SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC, and the Insureds’ loss consultant, Jogly Garcia. 5. Identify every person who had any role in working on or adjusting the Claim. This interrogatory seeks the name of every employee or agent of Defendant who had anything to do with the claim, including, for example, adjusters, engineers, branch claims examiners, all claims managers and claims supervisors at any level, executive officers of the company, and members of any review committee or claims committee. ANSWER: Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter, time and lacks specificity. The Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client and/or work-product privileges. The Interrogatory seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory seeks confidential-proprietary information/documents. Further, an insurer’s claim file and/or an insurer’s underwriting file and/or claim handling procedures and guidelines is/are not within the scope of a first party claim for insurance benefits. See Homeowner's Choice Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Ine. vy. Avila, 248 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. Premier Diagnostic Centers, LLC, 185 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 34 DCA 2016), denied review, 2016 WL 3002460 (Fla. May 25, 2016); Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Kramer, 41 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 4" DCA 2010); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins, Comp. v. O’Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); State Farm Florida Ins., Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino- Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); American Reliance Ins. Comp., v. Rosemont Condominium Homeowners Association, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); American Bankers Insurance of Florida v. Wheeler, 711 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. sm DCA 1998); Nationwide Insurance Company of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla 2d DCA 2011); Homeowner’s Choice Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Inc. v. Mahady, 2019CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656 Page 5 of 13 WL 3938885 (Fla. 4" DCA August 21, 2019). See also Privilege Log for privileged documents. The Interrogatory seeks notes, mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions of the attorney, which constitutes privileged opinion work product. See Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Stare v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Notwithstanding said objection and not waiving same, upon information and belief, the following persons on Universal’s behalf may have knowledge regarding the subject claim: Eduardo Campos Claims Examiner Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company 1110 W. Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Eduardo Campos served as claims examiner on Universal’s behalf regarding the subject claim. Cristiano Nicolucci Field Adjuster Nicolucci & Partners, Inc. 304 Indian Trace, #333 Weston, FL 33326 Cristano Nicolucci served as field adjuster on Universal’s behalf regarding the subject claim. Cristano Nicolucci inspected the insured property on June 17, 2019. . Identify each person identified in your answer to the preceding interrogatory who is no longer employed with or an agent of Defendant, please state the date their affiliation with you ended, and their last known contact information including but not limited to: phone numbers, email addresses, and physical addresses. ANSWER: See Universal’s response to Interrogatory number 5 above in its entirety. . Identify each written estimate for repair or replacement, including the amount set forth in each estimate, which has been provided to the Defendant by the Plaintiff in reference to the Plaintiff’s claim for benefits under the Policy. ANSWER: All relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ request and regarding the claim subject in this matter will be provided under separate cover, pursuant to FL. R. Civ. P. 1.340(c).CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656 Page 6 of 13 8. Identify all persons (other than the Defendant) believed or known by you, your agents or attorneys to have knowledge concerning any of the issues raised by the pleadings, specifying the subject matter about which witnesses have knowledge and state whether you have obtained any statements (oral, written or recorded) from any of said witnesses, list the dates any such witness statements were taken, by whom any such witness were taken and who has the present possession, custody and control of any such statements. ANSWER: Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter, time and lacks specificity. The Interrogatory seeks information/documents within Plaintiffs’ knowledge and possession. The Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. The Interrogatory seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory seeks confidential-proprietary information/documents. Further, an insurer’s claim file and/or an insurer’s underwriting file and/or claim handling procedures and guidelines is/are not within the scope of a first party claim for insurance benefits. See Homeowner's Choice Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Inc. v. Avila, 248 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. Premier Diagnostic Centers, LLC, 185 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), denied review, 2016 WL 3002460 (Fla. May 25, 2016); Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Kramer, 41 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 4" DCA 2010); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Comp. v. O’Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); State Farm Florida Ins., Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino- Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); American Reliance Ins. Comp., v. Rosemont Condominium Homeowners Association, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); American Bankers Insurance of Florida v. Wheeler, 711 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. sth DCA 1998); Nationwide Insurance Company of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla 2d DCA 2011); Homeowner’s Choice Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Inc. v. Mahady, 2019 WL 3938885 (Fla. 4" DCA August 21, 2019). See also Privilege Log for privileged documents. The Interrogatory seeks notes, mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions of the attorney, which constitutes privileged opinion work product. See Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), Notwithstanding said objection and not waiving same, upon information and belief, the following persons or entities (other than Universal) may have knowledge regarding the subject claim: Mitchelle R. Ordonez Insured 610 SW 69" Way Pembroke Pines, FL 33023CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656 Page 7 of 13 A telephonic recorded statement of Mitchell Ordonez was conducted on September 11, 2019. Present was Insureds’ counsel, Steven F. of SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC. Doreen B. Ordonez Insured 610 SW 69" Way Pembroke Pines, FL 33023 Lean Alexander Insureds’ Adult Child residing at the insured property 610 SW 69" Way Pembroke Pines, FL 33023 Ms. Beltran Insureds’ Mother-in-law residing at the insured property 610 SW 69" Way Pembroke Pines, FL 33023 Steven F. Present during telephonic recorded statement of Mitchelle R. Ordonez SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC. 1200 NW 78" Ave. Suite 302 Miami, FL 33126 Jacqueline F. Rosado Present during Universal’s inspection of the insured property SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC. 1200 NW 78" Ave. Suite 302 Miami, FL 33126 Xanathy Gonzalez SILVERBERG|BRITO, PLLC. 1200 NW 78" Ave. Suite 302 Miami, FL 33126 Specialty Public Adjuster, Inc. 2441 NW 93" Avenue Suite 102A Doral, FL 33172 Jogly Garcia Insureds’ Loss Consultant — present at Universal’s inspection Specialty Public Adjuster, Inc.10. CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656 Page 8 of 13 2441 NW 93" Avenue Suite 102A Doral, FL 33172 Hydro Restoration, LLC. 15358 SW 51S Manor Davie, FL 33331 Javier Delgado Technician Hydro Restoration, LLC. 15358 SW 51S Manor Davie, FL 33331 R & I Plumbing Service, Corp. 7898 NW 174 Terrace Miami, FL 33015 Monopoly Plumbing 11967 SW 26" Court Miramar, FL 33025 In addition, discovery is ongoing, and Universal therefore reserves the right to amend this Response. Identify all persons who, on the Defendant's behalf have any way participated in the investigation, evaluation, adjusting or handling of the Claim involved hereto and specify the nature of the participation for each and every such person and give the time period during which they participated. ANSWER: Objection. Duplicative. See Universal’s response to Interrogatory number 5 above in its entirety. For each decision that was made that the Claim or any part thereof, was allegedly not covered under the Policy, please state the date you first decided that the Claim or any portion thereof, was not covered and the names and address and phone number and the dates of involvement of each and every person that knows any information concerning these matters. ANSWER: Objection. Duplicative. See Universal’s response to Interrogatory number 3 above in its entirety. Further, see Universal’s responses to Interrogatories numbers 5 and 8 above for,ll. 12. CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656 Page 9 of 13 upon information and belief, persons or entities who may have knowledge regarding the subject claim. Refer to the page and line of any and all written guidelines you used in the claims handling process that justify the investigation and claims handling such as was conducted with regards to the Claims. ANSWER: Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter, time and lacks specificity as to the issues framed by the pleadings. The Interrogatory is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and harassing in nature. The Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. The Interrogatory seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory seeks confidential-proprietary information/documents. Further, an insurer’s claim file and/or an insurer’s underwriting file and/or claim handling procedures and guidelines is/are not within the scope of a first party claim for insurance benefits. See Homeowner’s Choice Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Inc. y. Avila, 248 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. Premier Diagnostic Centers, LLC, 185 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), denied review, 2016 WL 3002460 (Fla. May 25, 2016); Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Kramer, 41 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 4 DCA 2010); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Comp. v. O’Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 24 DCA 2008); State Farm Florida Ins., Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Scottsdale Insurance Co. y. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); American Reliance Ins. Comp., v. Rosemont Condominium Homeowners Association, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 34 DCA 1995); American Bankers Insurance of Florida v. Wheeler, 711 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5tt DCA 1998); Nationwide Insurance Company of Florida y. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla 2d DCA 2011); Homeowner's Choice Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Inc. v. Mahady, 2019 WL 3938885 (Fla. 4" DCA August 21, 2019). See also Privilege Log for privileged documents. The Interrogatory seeks notes, mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions of the attorney, which constitutes privileged opinion work product. See Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Please describe all requests made by the Defendant upon the Plaintiff (ie., requests for examination under oath, information, documents, sworn proofs of loss, etc.,) in reference to the Claim and the dates made. ANSWER: All relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ request and regarding the claim subject in this matter will be provided under separate cover, pursuant to Fl. R. Civ.13. 14, CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656 Page 10 of 13 P, 1.340(c), including but not limited to, correspondence dated June 13, 2019, July 9, 2019, July 26, 2019, August 28, 2019 and denial correspondence dated October 28, 2019. With reference to each of your affirmative defenses raised in the Lawsuit, please describe each and every fact upon which you rely to substantiate such affirmative defense, including identification of all witnesses to each such fact. ANSWER: Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter, time and lacks specificity. The Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney- client and/or work-product privileges. The Interrogatory seeks notes, mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions of the attorney, which constitutes privileged opinion work product. See Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State y. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Additionally, these type of form Interrogatories are inappropriate as discovery is not intended to compel an adversary to investigate a case on their behalf. See Cabrera v. Evans, 322 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Notwithstanding said objection and not waiving same, see Universal’s Answer and Defenses to Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the Policy, which speak for themselves and set forth the facts upon which support rests, including but not limited to: due to Plaintiffs’ material breaches in complying with all terms, conditions, definitions, limitations, exclusions and endorsements contained within the Policy and all applicable Florida Statutes, Universal’s investigation was irrevocably prejudiced. In addition, all relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ request and regarding the claim subject in this matter will be provided under separate cover, pursuant to Fl. R. Civ. P. 1.340(c), including but not limited to, correspondence dated June 13, 2019, July 9, 2019, July 26, 2019, August 28, 2019 and denial correspondence dated October 28, 2019. Further, see Universal’s responses to Interrogatories numbers 5 and 8 above for, upon information and belief, persons or entities who may have knowledge regarding the subject claim. Please detail each and every reason for every paragraph you denied in the Complaint. ANSWER: Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter, time and lacks specificity. The Interrogatory seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. The Interrogatory seeks notes, mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions of the attorney, which constitutes privileged opinion work product. See Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Additionally, these type of form Interrogatories are inappropriate as discovery is not intended to compel15. CASE NO.: CACE-19-021656 Page 11 of 13 an adversary to investigate a case on their behalf. See Cabrera v. Evans, 322 So, 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Notwithstanding said objection and not waiving same, see Universal’s Answer and Defenses to Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the Policy, which speak for themselves and set forth the facts upon which support rests, including but not limited to: due to Plaintiffs’ material breaches in complying with all terms, conditions, definitions, limitations, exclusions and endorsements contained within the Policy and all applicable Florida Statutes, Universal’s investigation was irrevocably prejudiced. In addition, all relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ request and regarding the claim subject in this matter will be provided under separate cover, pursuant to Fl. R. Civ. P. 1.340(c), including but not limited to, correspondence dated June 13, 2019, July 9, 2019, July 26, 2019, August 28, 2019 and denial correspondence dated October 28, 2019. For any Request for Admissions served on the Defendant by the Plaintiffs (as of the date you received this interrogatory) for which Defendant denied the truth of the statement, provide the following for each: a. All facts that support the denial; b. Identify all documents that support the denial; c. All witnesses possessing knowledge that supports Defendant’s denial of the Request for Admission. ANSWER: Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter, time and lacks specificity. The Interrogatory seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. The Interrogatory seeks notes, mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions of the attorney, which constitutes privileged opinion work product. See Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Additionally, these type of form Interrogatories are inappropriate as discovery is not intended to compel an adversary to investigate a case on their behalf. See Cabrera v. Evans, 322 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Notwithstanding said objection and not waiving same, see Universal’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admissions, which speak for themselves. In addition, all relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ request and regarding the claim subject in this matter will be provided under separate cover, pursuant to Fl. R. Civ. P. 1.340(c). Further, see Universal’s responses to Interrogatories numbers 5 and 8 above for, upon information and belief, persons or entities who may have knowledge regarding the subject claimCASE NO.: CACE-19-021656 Page 12 of 13 16. Please describe why you did not issue payment for the Loss. ANSWER: Objection. The Interrogatory is overbroad in scope with respect to subject matter, time and lacks specificity. The Interrogatory utilizes an improper predicate as it presupposes that coverage for the Plaintiffs was warranted and/or entitled under the subject Policy. The Interrogatory seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. Further, an insurer’s claim file and/or an insurer’s underwriting file and/or claim handling procedures and guidelines is/are not within the scope of a first party claim for insurance benefits. See Homeowner's Choice Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Inc. v. Avila, 248 So. 3d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. Premier Diagnostic Centers, LLC, 185 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), denied review, 2016 WL 3002460 (Fla. May 25, 2016); Castle Key Ins. Co. v. Benitez, 124 So. 3d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Kramer, 41 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 4"" DCA 2010); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Comp. v. O’Hearn, 975 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); State Farm Florida Ins., Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Camara De Comercio Latino-Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 34 DCA 2002); American Reliance Ins. Comp., v. Rosemont Condominium Homeowners Association, 671 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); American Bankers Insurance of Florida v. Wheeler, 711 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 5" DCA 1998); Nationwide Insurance Company of Florida v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982 (Fla 2d DCA 2011); Homeowner’s Choice Property and Casualty Ins. Co. Inc. v. Mahady, 2019 WL 3938885 (Fla. 4" DCA August 21, 2019). See also Privilege Log for privileged documents. The Interrogatory seeks notes, mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions of the attorney, which constitutes privileged opinion work product. See Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Additionally, these type of form Interrogatories are inappropriate as discovery is not intended to compel an adversary to investigate a case on their behalf. See Cabrera v. Evans, 322 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Notwithstanding said objection and not waiving same, see Universal’s Answer and Defenses to Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the Policy, which speak for themselves and set forth the facts upon which support rests, including but not limited to: due to Plaintiffs’ material breaches in complying with all terms, conditions, definitions, limitations, exclusions and endorsements contained with