Legal Document: FIDEL GARCIA ET AL VS CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION

On July 01, 2020 a Motion: - MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DUE TO PLAINTIFFS Due Date: Complete Date: was filed involving a dispute between Garcia, Fidel, Garcia, Salvador, and Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, for Contract & Indebtedness in the District Court of Miami-Dade County.

Preview
Filing # 155090356 E-Filed 08/10/2022 05:56:23 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MIAMI DADE COUNTY

FIDEL GARCIA AND SALVADOR CASE NO.: 2020-013926-CA-01 (CA
GARCIA 27)

Plaintifi{s)
Vv.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Defendant(s)
/

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S
SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE

Defendant, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, by and through the

undersigned counsel and pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380, files its

Motion for Sanctions Due to Plaintiffs Spoliation of Evidence and in support thereof

states as follows:

BACKGROUND

1 On or about 09/30/2019, Plaintiffs contacted Defendant CITIZENS PROPERTY

INSURANCE CORPORATION to report a loss at the property located at 9220

CARIBBEAN BLVD,MIAMI, FL 33157-8840. A copy of Jewel Collin’s affidavit

is attached as Exhibit A.

During that initial call, Plaintiff stated that a plumbing leak caused damage to the

property. The Plaintiff stated that the date of loss was 09/20/2018. See Exhibit A.

The loss was assigned a claim number, to wit, 001-00-218827 and assigned to a

field adjuster, Jared Holbrook, and a desk adjuster, Jewel Collins. See Exhibit A.

On 11/26/2019, Citizens field adjuster, Jared Holbrook, inspected the property in

relation to this claim. See Exhibit B.

During the filed adjuster’s inspection, the field adjuster noted that there was mold
and mildew on the ceiling of the guest bathroom, but he could not determine the

source ofa leak.

Defendant CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION retained the

services of an expert, to wit, Donald Dunn.

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION has been informed, and

been provided photo evidence, that the guest bathroom was already replaced. See

Exhibit C (Photos of bathroom renovation).

On October 4, 2019, and again on January 23, 2020, Defendant CITIZENS

PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION sent a Reservation of Rights letter

to the Plaintiff wherein Plaintiff was notified as follows:

This letter is to advise you that, until we can investigate all of the facts and
circumstances surrounding your claim, it is necessary for us to handle your claim
under this Reservation of Rights.

There are questions about coverage that may result in a denial of your claim, in
whole or in part. As such, it will be necessary for us to handle this matter,
reserving our rights as provided by the policy terms and conditions. We
specifically reserve our rights for the following reason(s):

1 Duties After Loss

2. Allow Expert to Inspect the Insured Location

Refer to SECTION 1 — CONDITIONS; B. Duties After Loss from your CIT HO-
3 07 17; starting on page 19 of 34, Provisions 1. through 11.

While proceeding with the investigation of this claim, Citizens neither has waived
nor intends to waive any rights or defenses under said policy, but specifically
reserves its right to assert such policy defenses to exist at any time pursuant to
further investigation.

A copy of the June October 4, 2019, and the January 23, 2020 ROR letters to the
Plaintiff is attached as composite Exhibit C.

Citizens sent Requests for Information (hereinafter “RFT”) to the Plaintiff,

formally requesting documents and records that Citizens needed to complete the

investigation of the instant claim.
A copy of the 11/20/2019 RFI letter to the Plaintiffs is attached as Composite
Exhibit D.

10. The only document we received as an estimate from Leading Public Adjusters but

no other supporting documents.

11 On March 10, 2020, Defendant CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE

CORPORATION sent a denial letter to the Plaintiff, stating in pertinent part as

follows:

Citizens has concluded its investigation of your claim. During this process
we requested information and documentation from you that would allow
us to further evaluate and determine coverage for your claim. We are in
receipt of Leading Public Adjusters, Inc. estimate.

Due to the passage of time our position has been severely prejudiced, and
we are unable to determine the reported damages are related to the
reported date of loss. Our investigation revealed the mold/fungi was the
result of non-working vents which caused continued moisture and not the
result caused by a covered peril. Based on the facts stated herein, citizens
will not be issuing payment for the reported loss.

Please refer to your CITIZENS HOMEOWNERS 3 SPECIAL FORM,
CIT HO-3 07 17, SECTION I - EXCLUSIONS, provision A.10., and
SECTION | — CONDITIONS, provision B., starting on page 18 of 34,
which outlines the applicable policy language noted above.

12 Plaintiff filed suit on 07/01/2020, and Defendant was served on 8/19/2020.

ARGUMENT

13 The Third District’s decision in DePuy, Inc. v. Eckes, 427 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA

1983), is generally credited as the first Florida state court case to impose sanctions

for spoliation of evidence. In DePuy, the court held that the trial judge did not err

in striking a defendant’s affirmative defenses after the defendant returned the

plaintiff's crucial piece of evidence, a defective hip prosthesis, with the fracture site

missing. The defense had performed an electron microscope examination on the

fracture site, which the plaintiff had not yet performed. The defendant’s lack of bad

faith in losing the evidence was held to be irrelevant.
14. The principles announced in DePuy were expanded in Rockwell International

Corp. v. Menzies, 561 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In Rockwell, the Third

District, citing DePuy, affirmed an order striking a table saw manufacturer’s answer

and affirmative defenses and entered a default because of the destruction and loss

of two bolts attached to another manufacturer’s motor. The bolts were hacked off

by the table saw manufacturer’s experts in the course of an inspection of the table

saw because they could not otherwise remove the other manufacturer’s motor.

When the defendant’s experts reinstalled the original motor, they installed

replacement bolts but failed to retain the two original, hacked-off bolts. There was

no evidence that this was done in bad faith. The rationale for affirming the default

was that the destruction of the two bolts made it impossible for the plaintiffto rebut

the expected testimony of the manufacturer’s expert that the buyer had failed to

firmly secure the bolts to the motor plate.

15. This court has recognized that drastic sanctions, including a default, are appropriate

when a defendant who has been ordered not to destroy evidence does, in fact, alter

or destroy critical physical evidence, and when the plaintiff has demonstrated an

inability to proceed without such evidence. DePuy, Inc. v. Eckes, 427 So. 2d 306

(Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In so ruling, this court concluded that whether the defendant

destroyed the evidence in “bad faith or accidentally is irrelevant.” 561 So. 2d at

679. The Third District has continued to uphold this principle. See Sponco Mfg.,

Inc. vy. Alcover, 656 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1995).

16. In Federal Insurance Co. v. Allister, 622 So. 2d 1348, 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993),

the Fourth District set forth five factors to consider before imposing sanctions for

spoliation of evidence: “(1) whether there is prejudice; (2) whether the prejudice

can be cured; (3) the practical importance of the evidence; (4) the good faith or bad
faith surrounding the loss of evidence; and (5) possible abuse if the evidence is not

excluded”.

17 Florida state courts have ruled that the issue of “bad faith” is irrelevant if the

evidence was so essential to the party’s case that it could not proceed without it. In

DePuy, for example, the court noted: “Whether the prothesis was destroyed in bad

faith or accidentally is irrelevant in the present case. The evidence is unavailable

for the plaintiff's use and they have demonstrated an inability to proceed without

it. Having lost the prothesis, [defendants] are now accountable for the

ramifications of their act.” 427 So. 2d at 308.

18. Similarly, the Fourth District in New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 559 So.

2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), focused on the importance of the evidence rather than

on whether the destruction was in bad faith:

If appellant has destroyed relevant and material information by destroying
the file, and that information is so essential to the appellee’s defense that it
cannot proceed without it, then the striking of appellant’s pleadings may be
warranted. See DePuy, Inc. v. Eckes, 427 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Alternatively, where a party fails to produce evidence within his control, an
adverse inference may be drawn that the withheld evidence would be
unfavorable to the party failing to produce it. Valcin v. Public Health Trust
of Dade County, 473 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), modified, Public
Health Trust of Dade County v. Valcin, 473 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA
1984). Thus the court could indulge such an inference on the facts of this
case. [Emphasis added.]

19 This is not to say that bad faith is unimportant under Florida state court law. In

Metropolitan Dade County v. Bermudez, 648 So. 2d 197, 200 (Fla. Ist DCA 1994),

for example, the court stated that the degree ofa defendant’s willfulness in selling

a wrecked vehicle as parts will affect the severity of the sanction: “Even dismissal

ofa claim or defense may be appropriate where there has been willful or malicious

destruction of evidence,. . but less drastic measures are ordinarily appropriate

where relevant evidence was inadvertently destroyed.” The court in Bermudez thus
instructed the lower court as follows:

If the judge of compensation claims concludes that the County deliberately
deprived the other side—and so the tribunal—of access to this evidence as
part of its effort to establish the seat belt defense, striking the defense or
excluding the County’s witnesses would not be too severe a sanction. If the
judge of compensation claims concludes that the County did not act
willfully, consideration should be given to whether the County’s negligence
would have prevented access if claimant’s counsel had requested
production more promptly; whether the claimant can fairly meet the
testimony of [the expert witness], using photographs or the testimony of
others at the scene, without having conducted an examination of the vehicle;
and whether the prejudice to the claimant, if any, may be cured by some less
drastic means than disallowing [the expert’s] testimony.

648 So. 2d at 647-48.

20. In addition to imposing discovery or pleading sanctions, the Florida Supreme Court

in Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Valcin, set forth certain criteria for

imposing evidentiary presumptions in the event of negligent or intentional

destruction of hospital records, as follows: 1) If the hospital is unable to produce

the records, the plaintiff must establish that the absence of the records hinders the

plaintiff's ability to establish a prima facie case; 2) if the plaintiff meets that burden,

a presumption of liability arises and the burden of proof shifts to the hospital to

prove the nonexistence of the fact presumed; and 3) when evidence rebutting such

presumption is introduced, the presumption does not automatically disappear and

is not overcome until the trier of fact believes that the presumed fact has been

overcome by whatever degree of persuasion is required by the substantive law of

the case. The court did not require the destruction to be intentional; mere negligence

was sufficient.! However, if the spoliation was intentional, the court left the door

' The supreme court opinion modified the Third District’s holding in Valcin v. Public Health Trust of Dade
County, 473 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1984), that the absence of surgical records, which a hospital is
required to maintain by law, created a rebuttable presumption if the hospital was merely negligent in losing
the evidence, but created a “conclusive, irrebuttable presumption” of negligence if the hospital deliberately
destroyed the documents. The Florida Supreme Court, while accepting the general principle that a
presumption should be created in the event of spoliation of evidence, quashed as unconstitutional the Third
District’s holding with regard to the establishment ofa conclusive, irrebuttable presumption in the event of
deliberate spoliation of evidence. Instead, the court stated that if the spoliation was merely negligent, then a
open to further sanctions: “[A] wide range of sanctions is available to the trial court

under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(b)(2).”

21 The cases above involve evidence that was sporulated during the pendency of an

action. first element to establish the tort of negligent spoliation of evidence is “the

existence of a potential civil action.” Continental Insurance Co. v. Herman, 576

So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (emphasis added).
22. Additionally, Federal courts have rejected the argument that discovery sanctions

can only be imposed if there was a specific discovery request or court order directed

toward the destroyed information. The court has inherent power to impose

sanctions even in the absence of a discovery request or court order, as long as the

party had notice of a legal duty to preserve the evidence:

Conduct of the kind which ordinarily would be sanctionable under Rule 37,
[Fed.R.Civ.P.] but fall outside the express terms of the rule, can be
sanctioned by proper exercise of this Court’s inherent powers... . Defendant
destroyed records for which it was on notice that it had a legal duty to
preserve, and that duty is imposed, in part, to ensure that those records are
available for litigation of a discrimination charge. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 690 F. Supp. 995,
997-98 (M.D. Fla. 1988).

23 In this instant action, Plaintiff has taken Defendant’s ability to expertly inspect the

property during the pendency of this action. Defendant’s inability to expertly

inspect the property coupled with the facts above is highly prejudicial and such

prejudice can not be cured. Without the ability to have defendant’s expert inspect

the property, defendant is severely prejudiced in preparing to try this case.

CONCLUSION

24. In determining whether to impose sanctions or evidentiary presumptions for

spoliation of evidence, Florida state courts generally require the trial court to

presumption of liability arises, which presumption may be rebutted if the hospital puts forth evidence of its
non-negligence.
consider whether the spoliation 1) impairs the party from presenting its case or its

defense to the case, and 2) was committed willfully or inadvertently. If the evidence

is so essential that the party cannot proceed without it, bad faith is irrelevant and

need not be considered in state court actions but is required in federal court actions.

In either court system, the imposition of sanctions and presumptions for lost or

destroyed evidence can, in some circumstances, provide an even greater advantage

than the actual evidence itself had such evidence been available.

25 Furthermore, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 1.380(a)(4), Defendant seeks to recover its

expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in Plaintiff's failure to preserve the

alleged damaged property.

WHEREFORE, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation respectfully requests this

Honorable Court to enter an order sanctioning Plaintiffs for spoliation of evidence

including striking of pleadings, striking of Plaintiff's expert testimony, the imposition ofa

presumption of prejudice as to liability, a judgment in favor of Citizens Property Insurance

Corporation, dismissal of this claim, or anything else deemed just and proper.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via
the e-filing portal on August 10, 2022 to all parties and/or counsel of record.

_IS/)_ Myrnabelle Roche. “Exg.
Myrnabelle Roche, Esq.
Fla. Bar. No. 562831
MRN Law PA
Attorneys for Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
6700 North Andrews Ave
Suite 103
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
Phone: (954) 784-7001
Email 1: courtdocuments@mrnlawpa.com
Email 2: Mroche@mrmlawpa.com
EXHIBITA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MIAMI DADE COUNTY

FIDEL GARCIA AND SALVADOR CASE NO.: 2020-013926-CA-01 (CA
GARCIA 27)
DIVISION:
Plaintiff(s)
Vv.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Defendant(s)
/

AFFIDAVIT

BEFORE ME personally appeared JEWEL COLLINS, and upon first being duly

sworn under oath states as follows:

1 My name is JEWEL COLLINS. I am a licensed insurance adjuster in the State of

Florida (license number E168994) and over the age of 18.

I have personally knowledge as to the facts stated herein.

On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff, FIDEL GARCIA, notified Citizens of alleged

leak that had occurred on September 20, 2018, in the bathroom pipes located in the

roof of the property, that which allegedly leaked into the ceiling of the guest

bathroom that had caused mold and moisture on to form, at which time, I was tasked

with investigating Citizens Property Insurance Corporation claim number 001-00-

218827.

As part of my investigation of claim number 001-00-218827, I personally reviewed

the photos of the property located at 9220 CARIBBEAN BLVD,MIAMI, FL

33157-8840, taken on November 26, 2019.

I was unable to determine the source of the leak in the kitchen.
Additionally, I was unable to determine the source of the ceiling mildew and there

was no roof leak.

The document attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the

March 10, 2020, letter sent by Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, to the

insured(s), FIDEL GARCIA AND SALVADOR GARCIA.

I recognize that the signature on Exhibit A is my signature.

The letter attached as Exhibit A reflects that Citizens denied coverage because:

Due to the passage of time our position has been severely prejudiced,
and we are unable to determine the reported damages are related to the
reported loss.

Please refer to your CITIZENS HOMEOWNERS 3 —- SPECIAL FORM,
CIT HO-3 07 17, SECTION I > EXCLUSIONS, provision A. 10., and
SECTION I — CONDITIONS; provision B., starting on page 18 of 34,
which outlines the policy language.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. i ,
Jt CAL
/TEWEL COLLINS
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DUVAL

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of O) physical presence
or & online notarization, this 19thth day of August 2021 » by
Jewel Collins

X_ Personally Known OR Produced Identification

Nicole Price

NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA
Nicole Price
Nicole Price Commission # GG 920407
(Print, Type or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) Expires: October 7, 2023
My Commission expires:
EXHIBIT A
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
PO Box 19700
Jacksonville, FL 32245-9700

Crnzens
PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION ‘TELEPHONE: (866) 411-2742 FAX: (888) 392-6739

March 10, 2020

Fidel & Salvador Garcia
c/o Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez & Martinez, P.L
2601 S Bayshore Dr FL 18
Coconut Grove, FL 33133

RE Citizens Claim Number: 001-00-218827
Citizens Policy Number: 02152879
Date of Loss: 9/20/2018
Cause of Loss: Water Damage - Non Weather Related
Insured Location: 92220 Caribbean Blvd, Miami, FL 33157

Dear Marin, Eljaiek, Lopez & Martinez, P.L:

This letter confirms our discussion with you on March 10, 2020, regarding the claim
referenced above.

Citizens has concluded its investigation of your claim. During this process we requested
information and documentation from you that would allow us to further evaluate and determine
coverage for your claim. We are in receipt of Leading Public Adjusters, Inc estimate.

Due to the passage of time our position has been severely prejudiced, and we are unable to
determine the reported damages are related to the reported date of loss. Our investigation
revealed the mold/fungi was the result of non - working vents which caused continued moisture
and not the result caused by a covered peril. Based on the facts stated herein, Citizen will not
be issuing payment for the reported loss.

Please refer to your CITIZENS HOMEOWNERS 3 SPECIAL FORM, CIT HO-3 07 17,
SECTION 1-EXCLUSIONS, provision A.10., and SECTION 1 — CONDITIONS, provision
B., starting on page 18 of 34, which outlines the policy language.

When a dispute exists regarding your claim, or when we have denied payment of your claim,
Florida law requires that we notify you of your right to participate in the Property Insurance
Mediation Program established by the Florida Department of Financial Services. Enclosed is
a brochure with detailed instructions about how you may request mediation in an effort to
resolve your disagreement with our decision.

Page 1 of 2
If you have additional documentation you would like Citizens to review, you can submit it by
one of the following methods:

. Preferred: Send as an email attachment to Claims. Communications@citizensfla.com.
Include the claim number and policyholder name in the Subject line.

. U.S. Mail to:

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
P.O. Box 19700
Jacksonville, FL 32245-9700

. By fax to 888.392.6739

Be sure to include the claim number and policyholder name on all communications.

If you have questions, contact me at the phone number below.

Sincerely,

Jewel Collins | Desk Adjuster
“Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
301 West Bay Street, Suite 1300
Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5142

Office: (866) 411-2742 ext. 70694
Direct: (317) 436-6218
Email: Claims.communications@CitizensFLA.com

Enclosure: Mediation Brochure

ce: Fidel & Salvador Garcia

Truview Mold, LLC

Martinez and Alvarez Inc

If this document contains an excerpt from a Citizens Property Insurance Policy (“the Policy”) it is provided
here for informational purposes only. This excerpt is not the official version of the Policy. The official version
of the Policy is the policy issued to the insured on the policy effective date. In the event there is inconsistency
between this document and the Policy, the Policy shall serve as the official version.

Any person who knowingly and with intent to injure, defraud, or deceive any insurer files a statement of claim
or an application containing any false, incomplete, or misleading information is guilty ofa felony of the third
degree. F.S. 817.234

Page 2 of 2
WHO CAN REQUEST MEDIATION? MEDIATION PROGRAM FOR
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CLAIMS
Mediation may be requested only
by the policyholder, as a first-party The Department of Financial Services
claimant, a third-party, as an assignee assists consumers who are having
of the policy benefits, or the insurance trouble resolving residential property
company. However, an insurance insurance claims. DFS has established
company is not required to participate a mediation program to resolve
in any mediation requested by a third- claim disputes between insurance
party assignee of the policy benefits. companies and Florida policyholders EEO Bd cele) eV
involving losses caused to residential
WHO CAN ATTEND AND WHAT property by turrics ws, fires and istotite (Talat Madge) 1-16 57
SHOULD | BRING? other causes. Insurance companies Perr Them O] Ey elt) <1)
are required to notify policyholders
If you are relying on architects, of their right to mediation if the
adjustors or contractors to justify your claim is disputed and has not been
claim, you may ask them to attend resolved ina Umely manner.
with you. Review your policy carefully
and look for names of those jisted as
“named insured,” The insured must a
attend the mediation conference. Since
mediation is dasigned to be non- pike if
HEN
a
adversarial, it is not necessary to have
an attorney present. However, if you
choose ta retain an attorney, please
notify the mediator and DFS at least
14 days prior to the conference date. Pert 2
feeds
a
Be sure to bring any supporting
documents, including your policy, ms ar —neenes
photographs, estimates, bills, reports,
letters, etc It is important to bring It you have questions or need additional ee eee eee
specific dollar estimates or quotes for information, you can contact the
all Items that are in dispute. if a non- =f a eee
English speaking policyholder needs Department of Financial Services at
1-877-MY-FL-CFO (1-877-693-5236)
an interpreter, they must ensure they
or online at http://MyFloridaCFO. a ee
provide one at the conference. as
com/ Div’ rs/Mediat
default.htm,

aS
Revised July 2018
ee
y
a roa To
Ji
Dm as Ae
PS
oO cp
ot my
Patron: nt
Bt
once

ctl
WHAT IS MEDIATION? ‘WHAT ARE THE LIMITS
OF when fraud is suspected. Commercial
MEDIAN and Liability claims are also exempt
Mediation is 2 non-binding process In from mediation,
which a neutral third party helps you The mediator helps the parties focus
and your insurance company reach a on the issues and understand each To find out if you qualify or to request
mutual agreement. Neither you nor the other’s point of view, but does not mediation, call the Department of
insurance company is legally obligated dictate the outcome of the discussion. Financial Services Toll-free Insurance
to accent an offer. Even if you settle at Choosing mediation does not prevent Consumer Helpline at 1-877-MY-FL-
the mediation, you have three business you from participating in other dispute CFO (1-877-693-5236).
days to change your mind, as long as resolution procedures or even going
you don’t cash the settlement check to court later, Nothing you say ina HOW MUCH TIME AND MONEY IS
during that time and you inform the mediation conference con be used THIS GOING TO COST?
company of your decision. against you in any later proceedings.
Mediation can continue as long as both
in order to help everyone, express their ARE COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL parties agree that they are making
point of view, the mediator may meet PROPERTIESEl progress. Mediation is paid for by the
privately with you or your insurance insurance company, except in the case
company. The most important thing Claim disputes involving where the policyholder cancels without
to remember about participating in condominium association master good cause and wants to reschedule
mediatian is that you have a chance policies, policies covering apartment the mediation. In this instance the
to explain what you believe you are buildings, rental property and other policyholder pays.
entitled to under your insurance policy. residential commercial properties are
HOW DO | GET STARTED?
eligible for mediation.
WHO ARE THE MEDIATORS?
AM | ELIGIBLE? Your insurance company is required
Mediators are persons approved by to notify you in writing of your right
OFS including those that are court- Anyone with a disputed residential to mediation. If you wish to t
appointed. A mediator must possess property damage claim, arising from medi contact DFS at 1-877-MY-

~
an active certification as a Florida covereddi in excess of $500 FL-CFO (1-877-693-5236). Once
Supreme Court certified circuit court not including the deductible, can mediation has been agreed to,
mediator or the mediator must have participate in mediation. Disputed mediator will notify you and the
been an approved mediator as of company of the date, time and place of
July 1, 2014, and have conducted the nference. Mediation will be held
at least one mediation on behalf of utral site.
the department within four years
immediately preceding that date.
A Florida Supreme Court certified
Circuit court mediator in a lapsed,
suspended, sanctioned or decertified
status is not eligible to participate in
the mediation program.

= ”
EXHIBIT B
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MIAMI DADE COUNTY

FIDEL GARCIA AND SALVADOR CASE NO.: 2020-013926-CA-01 (CA
GARCIA 27)
DIVISION:
Plaintiff(s)

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Defendant(s)
/

AFFIDAVIT.
BEFORE ME personally appeared JARED HOLBROOK, and upon first being

duly sworn under oath states as follows:

1 My name is JARED HOLBROOK. I ama licensed insurance adjuster in the State

of Florida (license number 297613) and over the age of 18.

Thave personally knowledge as to the facts stated herein.

On September 30, 2019, Plaintiff, FIDEL GARCIA, notified Citizens of alleged

leak that had occurred on September 20, 2018, in the kitchen of the property, at

which time, I was tasked with investigating Citizens Property Insurance

Corporation claim number 001-00-218827.

As part of my investigation of claim number 001-00-218827, I personally inspected

the property located at 9220 CARIBBEAN BLVD,MIAMI, FL 33157-8840 on

November 26, 2019.

Upon arrival at the property on November 16, 2019, I became a that the kitchen

was completely remodeled and that the claim was instead allegedly a result of

moisture and mildew in the ceiling of the guest bathroom surrounding the exhaust

fan and the HVAC vent.

Scanned with CamScanner
During my inspection, I took pictures of the property. A copy of said pictures are

attached as Exhibit A

The pictures attached as Exhibit A to this Affidavit, fairly and accurately depict

the condition of the subject property as it existed on November 26, 2019.

The pictures attached as Exhibit A and my inspection of the bathroom revealed

mildew on the ceiling, primarily around the HVAC air vent and the bathroom’s

exhaust fan, that appeared to be surface mildew and not from a leak.

I could not find any active leak, or any location of where water was coming from

10. I was unable to determine the source of the ceiling mildew.

11 Additionally, the supply lines and drain lines were not wet, and there was no roof

leak.

12. I was unable to determine that the source of the ceiling mildew that had occurred

on September 20, 2018, due to the passage of time.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

J DD HOLBROOK
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF (44°94
The foregoing instrument was ackt ieee before me by means of physical presence
seni " ci ion, ws AS day of. 5 by

Personal Known OR Produced Identification t DL

NOTARY LIC, STATE OF_ Flaca
ESS sa three
(Print, Tg i ad Name of Notary Public)
My Co iselemae FSG pnher tH
Jun 14, 2024
Natioeal Notary Asin,

Scanned with CamScanner
EXHIBIT A
a;
Lozano Adjusters
Lozano Insurance Adjusters, Inc.
12550 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 300
North Miami, FL 33181

FS
1 95-AC a
Date Taken: 11/26/2019

_——
Taken By: Jared Holbrook
no damage noted per this claim
= ~$

12 96-AC
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook At
meceneene3ie)1|

—_
——— i

or i

84 59-Master shower
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook

GARCIA_FIDEL 12/5/2019 Page: 43
al;
Lozano Adjusters
Lozano Insurance Adjusters, Inc.
12550 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 300
North Miami, FL 33181

85 60-Master shower
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook

no damage noted per this claim
|f

86 61-Master shower
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook
no damage noted per this claim

GARCIA_FIDEL 12/5/2019 Page: 44
Lozano Adjusters
Lozano Insurance Adjusters, Inc.
12550 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 300
North Miami, FL 33181

87 62-Master shower
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook

y a

88 63-LF bedroom
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook
no damage noted per this claim

GARCIA_FIDEL 12/5/2019 Page: 45
Lozano Adjusters
Lozano Insurance Adjusters, Inc.
12550 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 300
North Miami, FL 33181

89 64-LF bedroom ‘6
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook Sr
no damage noted per this claim

fy);

Le} ui

90 65-LF bedroom
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook

GARCIA_FIDEL 12/5/2019 Page: 46
Lozano Adjusters
Lozano Insurance Adjusters, Inc.
12550 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 300
North Miami, FL 33181

91 66-LF bedroom
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook
no damage noted per this claim =a
—

tL ig
ani iy

fm
Fe

92 67-LF bedroom
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook
no damage noted per this claim

GARCIA_FIDEL 12/5/2019 Page: 47
Lozano Adjusters
Lozano Insurance Adjusters, Inc.
12550 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 300
North Miami, FL 33181

93 68-Hallway
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook i
No access to this bedroom

‘S

94 69-Front studio
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook

GARCIA_FIDEL 12/5/2019 Page: 48,
Lozano Adjusters
Lozano Insurance Adjusters, Inc.
12550 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 300
North Miami, FL 33181

95 70-Front studio
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook
no damage noted per this claim

96 71-Front studio

\
ie
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook

GARCIA_FIDEL 12/5/2019 Page: 49
a;
Lozano Adjusters
Lozano Insurance Adjusters, Inc.
12550 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 300
North Miami, FL 33181

97 72-Front studio
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook

no damage noted per this claim

98 73-Front studio
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook

ee
a
-

GARCIA_FIDEL 12/5/2019 Page: 50
al;
Lozano Adjusters
Lozano Insurance Adjusters, Inc.
12550 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 300
North Miami, FL 33181

99 74-Front studio a
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook

no damage noted per this claim

100 75-Front studio
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook
no damage noted per this claim

GARCIA_FIDEL 12/5/2019 Page: 51
Lozano Adjusters
Lozano Insurance Adjusters, Inc.
12550 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 300
North Miami, FL 33181

101 76-Front studio
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
be I 7 hy
Taken By: Jared Holbrook 1

102 77-Front studio
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook
no damage noted per this claim

GARCIA_FIDEL 12/5/2019 Page: 52
Lozano Adjusters
Lozano Insurance Adjusters, Inc.
12550 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 300
North Miami, FL 33181

104 79-Studio bathroom
Date Taken: 11/26/2019 a
Taken By: Jared Holbrook
no damage noted per this claim

GARCIA_FIDEL 12/5/2019 Page: 53
a;
Lozano Adjusters
Lozano Insurance Adjusters, Inc.
12550 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 300
North Miami, FL 33181

105 80-Studio bathroom
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook

no damage noted per this claim
cy

ha:

106 81-Studio bathroom
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook "
no damage noted per this claim

GARCIA_FIDEL 12/5/2019 Page: 54
a;
Lozano Adjusters
Lozano Insurance Adjusters, Inc.
12550 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 300
North Miami, FL 33181

107 82-Studio bathroom
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook

108 83-Studio bathroom
Date Taken: 11/26/2019
Taken By: Jared Holbrook
no damage noted per this claim i

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 10, 2022

Case Filing Date

July 01, 2020

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for FIDEL GARCIA ET AL VS CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties