The Pardo Law Firm, P.A.

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Jose M. Hernandez, et al v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for his claim for damage to his property resulting from Tropical Storm Eta. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, based on the policy’s exclusion for damage cause by wear and tear, and the lack of any evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rain water to enter the property. On the eve of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.

Property Litigation Group

Dismissal

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Associate Marie Macias secured a dismissal in the matter styled Liberty Extraction & Drying, LLC a/a/o Ana Chavarria v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant served Plaintiff with its Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, arguing that the loss, an alleged plumbing leak, was not a covered cause of loss specifically enumerated in the named perils insurance policy, and thus, Plaintiff’s claim was frivolous in nature. Upon receipt of the motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.

Perez, Anthony; Macias, Marie E

The Pardo Law Firm, P.A.

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Associate Marie Macias obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Paramount Property restoration Corp a/a/o Katiuska Hernandez v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by not paying the full amount of Plaintiff’s invoice for services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, maintaining the position that it had properly issued payment pursuant to the statutory limit. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.

Perez, Anthony; Montanari, Taylor L

Your Insurance Attorney, PLLC

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Associate Taylor Montanari secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled AAA Restoration, LLC v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for its claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits executed more than three years after Hurricane Irma. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, and served its Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, contending that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant relied on Florida Statute §627.70132, which requires notice of a hurricane claim be provided within three years of the date of loss. As Plaintiff’s purported assignment was executed outside of those three years, Plaintiff’s claim was barred. Upon receipt of the motions, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.

Perez, Anthony; Teijelo, Alec A

Your Insurance Attorney, PLLC

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo obtained a dismissal in the matter styled Quick Mold Lab, Inc. a/a/o Tomasa Raffo v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, making the argument that the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor, that the insured/assignor had not complied with the post-loss duties imposed by the policy, and that the services provided by Plaintiff would only be covered if the costs were a result of a covered peril. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.

Perez, Anthony; Teijelo, Alec A

Your Insurance Attorney, PLLC

Dismissal

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo obtained a dismissal in the matter styled Top Mold Solutions, LLC a/a/o Tomasa Raffo v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, challenging the validity of the purported assignment, contending that it failed to comply with Florida Statute §627.7152, and was therefore invalid and unenforceable; thus, Plaintiff lacked standing to file suit. On the eve of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.

Burrows, Christopher H.; Newman, Hayley E.

Ball Janik LLP

Final Summary Judgment

Boca Raton Co-Managing Partner Christopher Burrows authored Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Opus Condominium Association v. Islamorada Condominiums, LLC, et al., a case involving construction and design defects related to the construction of an 11-story, 53 Unit condominium building located in Daytona Beach Shores, Florida (Volusia County). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against, amongst others, the original developer, Islamorada Condominiums, more than ten years after the date construction was completed and the certificate of occupancy was issued, which ran afoul of the Statute of Repose contained within Florida Statute section 95.11(3)(c). The major issue in the case was whether Islamorada Condominiums was considered the “owner” for purposes of triggering the statute of repose given that there was no dispositive case law requiring a court to grant Summary Judgment in Favor of Islamorada Condominiums. On May 18, 2022, Gavin McLean presented oral argument on Islamorada Condominiums’ Motion for Summary Judgment based on the Statute of Repose, wherein the Court reserved ruling. Thereafter, on October 21, 2022, the Court held a second hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment and Senior Partner Hayley Newman continued oral argument on behalf of Islamorada Condominiums, which resulted in the Court ultimately granting Final Summary Judgment in favor of Islamorada Condominiums. Read More.

C. Brock Law PLLC

Summary Judgment

Senior Associate Taylor Claudon obtained a favorable result in a first-party property matter styled Linder, Charles and Paula v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant Insurance Company alleging Defendant breached the insurance policy by not providing coverage for alleged damages to the Plaintiff’s property. The Plaintiff specifically claimed that on July 18, 2021, a windstorm occurred at the Plaintiff’s property, causing damage to the roof and subsequent water damages to the interior of the property. However, after Defendant received Plaintiffs’ insurance claim, Defendant conducted an inspection of the Plaintiffs’ property and concluded that the alleged damages to the property were caused by wear, tear, and age-related deterioration of the roof, which are not covered under the Plaintiffs’ homeowners insurance policy.

Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Plaintiff bears the burden to establish that a windstorm first damaged the property, causing an opening, which rain entered, and damaged the interior of the Plaintiffs’ property. The Defendant further argued that the Plaintiff cannot establish that the roof was damaged by a covered peril under the homeowners’ insurance policy. In addition, the Defendant argued that the only visible damage to the roof was the result of wear, tear, and age-related damage, which is excluded under the Plaintiffs’ policy. Therefore, Defendant argued that Plaintiff cannot establish a covered loss under the Policy. The Court agreed with Defendant and entered an Order for Final Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant. Plaintiff initially demanded $85,000. Read More.

Roger A. Alvarez, P.A.

Dismissal with Prejudice

Senior Associate Taylor Claudon obtained a favorable result in a first-party property matter styled Jeune, Thalerand v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant Insurance Company, alleging Defendant breached the insurance policy by not providing coverage for alleged damages to the Plaintiff’s property. The Plaintiff specifically claimed that on July 10, 2021, a supply line in the kitchen leaked, causing water damages to numerous areas of Plaintiff’s property. However, after Defendant Insurance Company received Plaintiff’s insurance claim, Defendant had an engineer conduct an inspection of the Plaintiff’s property and concluded that the alleged damages to the property were the result of constant and repeated seepage. In the Plaintiff’s deposition, she testified that she had noticed the leak eight to ten months prior to July 10, 2021.

 

Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the policy of insurance does not provide coverage for damages caused by constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water over a period of weeks, months, or years, unless the seepage or leakage was unknown to all insureds and is hidden within the walls or ceilings of the property. The Defendant further argued that based upon the Plaintiffs’ testimony, the kitchen supply line was constantly leaking water over a period of eight to ten months and the leakage was known to her and not hidden. Therefore, the Defendant argued that the reported damage to the Plaintiff’s property is not covered under the insurance policy.

 

On the eve of the hearing to argue Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice. The Defendant had an expired Proposal for Settlement for $500 inclusive of attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff initially demanded $25,460. Read More.

Morgan & Morgan

MSJ

On March 28, 2023, Tampa Managing Partner Anthony Petrillo obtained a summary judgment in a premises liability matter styled Plaintiff v. Imperial Lakes Estates Condominium Association, Inc. et al. Plaintiff, as an employee of a landscaping company hired by our client, an HOA, tripped and fell over cable wire. Plaintiff underwent several surgeries and incurred a lien of nearly $300,000. Plaintiff’s only demand to the insured was for policy limits of $1 million. In October of 2022, we served a proposal for settlement with our motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff rejected the proposal for settlement. At the summary judgment hearing, we argued that the Condominium Association was immune from tort liability under Florida’s worker’s compensation law as Plaintiff’s statutory employer and was therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Judge Sniffen in Manatee County agreed and dismissed the action with prejudice. Defendant’s motion for Attorney’s Fees and taxation of costs are pending pursuant to a rejected proposal for settlement. Read More.

Bailey, Nora R.; Pahl, Benjamin S

Newlin Law 

Defense Verdict

 

On June 2, 2023, Partners, Benjamin Pahl, Esq. and Nora Bailey, Esq., obtained a complete defense verdict after a four-day jury trial in an auto liability matter styled Plaintiffs v. Capp Custom Builders and Juan Luis Raya. The lawsuit arose out of a claim by the Plaintiffs, a motorcyclist and his passenger/girlfriend, wherein it was alleged that Defendant, Juan Luis Raya, acted negligently in operating a pick-up truck and enclosed trailer, owned by Capp Custom Builders, on US-1 in Brevard County, Florida.   Mr. Raya denied liability and asserted that Plaintiff Morgan had acted negligently by failing to observe traffic, causing him to rear-end the back of Mr. Raya’s trailer as he slowed to make a legal U-turn. 

 

The Defendant driver, Mr. Raya, testified throughout litigation and at trial that he stopped and looked for at least 5 seconds before leaving the job site to turn into US-1, and never saw the Plaintiffs’ motorcycle. The Plaintiffs, however, changed their story multiple times. Initially, Plaintiffs claimed that Mr. Raya had made a U-turn illegally in front of them, causing the crash. Prior to trial, they testified that Mr. Raya cut into their lane from right to left, or that he swung too wide when making the U-turn and ‘clipped’ the motorcycle. Finally, at trial, Plaintiffs testified to a new theory of liability – namely, that they could not recall what Mr. Raya had done wrong, but that he “appeared” in the roadway like a “flash.” Defense counsel, Mr. Pahl, was able to secure testimony from Plaintiff Morgan that he ultimately did not know what the Defendant had done wrong, and that he appeared in the road “like magic.” Additionally, the jury heard testimony and saw evidence that Plaintiff Morgan did not have a motorcycle endorsement, despite testifying otherwise, and both Plaintiffs admitted they were not wearing helmets. The defense was also able to elicit testimony and introduce evidence that the Plaintiffs had been to at least three restaurant/bars prior to the accident, where Plaintiff Morgan – the driver – had been drinking. There was no evidence submitted to the jury of Mr. Morgan’s impairment. Ms. Bailey elicited testimony from the passenger, Ms. Fuller, that she could not recall how many beers Mr. Morgan had drank, though she admitted it was at least 2. Following this testimony, the defense’s medical expert, Dr. Ronald Tolchin (pain and rehabilitation specialist), walked the jury through extensive medical records from Mr. Morgan’s PCP, which showed that he had reported drinking 4 beers daily years prior to and after the accident, had chronically elevated liver enzymes, and had been repeatedly told by his doctor to cut back.

 

Additionally, Defendants’ biomechanical engineer, Charles Proctor, Ph.D., testified at trial that the motorcyclist would have had 14.86 seconds with clear view of the trailer and more than adequate time to stop or evade the crash, and rear-ended the Defendant due to a simple lack of inattentiveness, worsened by the fact he had no motorcycle endorsement and therefore lacked the proper training to respond to an impending hazard.  Despite extensive argument and objection from Plaintiffs’ counsel, Ms. Bailey was successful in securing the accident reconstruction animation, prepared by Dr. Proctor, to be shown as a demonstrative aid during trial.  

 

Despite the clear liability issues, it was undisputed that the two motorcyclists were catastrophically injured, both requiring emergency trauma surgeries and sustaining mild traumatic brain injuries. Both underwent extensive rehabilitation stays and post-operative therapy, and Mr. Morgan required additional, subsequent surgeries to repair damage caused by the accident. Nonetheless, Dr. Tolchin opined that a right hip replacement, done more than 3 years after the accident, was unrelated to the crash given the severe degenerative osteoarthritis present on the day of the incident. Additionally, Ms. Bailey was successful in striking both Plaintiffs’ future medical expense claims, as Plaintiffs failed to produce anyone to testify as to medical cathey would need on an ongoing basis. 

 

Over the course of four days, the jury listened to the Plaintiffs testify about the devastating impact of the incident and the injuries on their lives.  In fact, the Plaintiffs called the defense CME physician (Dr. Tolchin) during their case to explain the gruesome nature of the injuries, which included pelvic, rib, and sternum fractures, extensive lacerations, and scrotal tears.  Plaintiff’s testimony that the Defendant driver appeared in the roadway like “magic” became the theme of the defense case, and it was argued by Mr. Pahl in closing that “more than magic” was necessary for Plaintiffs to meet their burden of proof. The jury was instructed on Florida’s rear-end presumption at the request of the defense, over objection and after substantial briefing on the issue by Ms. Bailey, that Mr. Morgan rear-ending the Defendant was presumptive evidence of his own negligence.

 

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Lead Trial Counsel for Dan Newlin, asked the jury in closing for an award of $7.4M (approximately $312,000 in total past medical expenses; the rest in pain and suffering). After deliberating for about two hours, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict in favor of Mr. Raya and Capp Custom Builders.  Read More.

Sparkman, James T; Cocchieri, Brittany P

Schilling & Silvers PLLC (Aaron Silvers)

Favorable Verdict

 

On May 24, 2023, Partners Brittany Cocchieri, Esq., and James Sparkman, Esq., obtained a favorable verdict in a first-party property matter styled Andrea Bennett and Mark Bennett v. Defendant Insurance Company. 

 

This Trial Team convinced the jury to return a verdict of $10,540 with a pretrial demand of $84,851.14. The plaintiff attorneys presented a case based largely on sympathy for the homeowners who retired to Southwest Florida from West Virginia, and had “their dream home shattered” by tropical storm Eta. The insured husband ended his testimony with an impassioned plea, with tears, to the jury for a reasonable figure for their ordeal.  

 

The defense countered that the homeowners never noticed any wind event damage in or around their home, including limb or asphalt shingle debris, gutter damage, or leaks. The claim was actually triggered by a kitchen remodel (10 months after the storm) that was discovered by the contractor, who put the insureds in touch with a public adjuster that had previously represented the contractor on his own claim. The plaintiffs played the video taken by the contractor, which showed water coming down kitchen walls from the roof, as it rained on the first day of demolition.  

 

The defense presented the field adjuster, the corporate representative, and a roofing engineer from Miami. The trial judge rejected the carrier’s directed verdict based on complete lack of evidence of a wind event that created an opening in the roof as required under the policy. The jury deliberated for 2 hours. A motion for judgment non obstante veredicto is being considered at this time. Read More.

Kirschbaum, Scott D; Jimenez, Elizabeth

Trelles & Bichler, LLC (Yvette M. Trelles)

Defense Verdict

 

On May 15, 2023, Partners Scott Kirschbaum, Esq., and Elizabeth Jimenez, Esq., obtained a complete defense verdict after a six-day jury trial in a professional liability matter styled Plaintiff v. Shawn Hearing d/b/a Therapeutic Touch Healing Center and Shawn Hearing, individually. The lawsuit arose out of a claim by the Plaintiff, a then 24 year old woman who was studying to be a massage therapist herself, wherein she claimed that Defendant, a licensed massage therapist in Ft. Pierce, performed a massage on her and injured her neck and shoulder by jamming his knee into her neck and shoulder. The Defendant massage therapist denied having performed a massage on the Plaintiff and insisted that he performed the massage on another willing patient as demonstration for the Plaintiff to learn massage techniques per her request to learn.   

 

As an aside, the Defendant and the Plaintiff had known each other for years and in fact, the Plaintiff resided in the Defendant’s home with her sister after Plaintiff’s mother died. The jury was permitted to know those limited facts about the prior relationship.  

 

The Defendant massage therapist admitted that even if he had performed a massage on the Plaintiff, he would never have used his knee on the patient’s body. His standard of care massage therapist expert, Nancy Porambo, LMT, also testified that the use of a knee during a massage would be below the standard of care and it did not make sense that the Plaintiff would be so injured during such a massage but not seek immediate medical attention. Notwithstanding, after refusing conservative treatment from one doctor, the Plaintiff then came under the care of orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Thomas Roush. Dr. Roush, after believing the interpretations of an MRI finding disc herniations and bulges at the C3-4, C4-5, C5-6, C6-7, put the Plaintiff through several procedure, most of which had been unsuccessful by his own admission. They included epidural injections, complete disc replacements, and rhizotomy to the tune of nearly $306,000.00 in medical costs. The jury was not pleased with the charges from Dr. Roush who also had a blended medical bill containing his medical charges for the Plaintiff as well as his “legal” charges as a retained expert in the case. Dr. Roush had also provided a life care plan for the Plaintiff that exceeded $400,000.00 of future care. He ultimately opined that the Plaintiff had recovered completely and had to retreat from many of his opinions about future medical needs and reverse himself in front of the jury.  

 

The defense’s medical experts, Dr. Michael Zeide (orthopedic surgery) and Dr. Gordon Sze (diagnostic radiologist) both opined that the imaging showed no evidence of herniation anywhere on the Plaintiff’s cervical spine.  Dr. Sze said that the imagining showed a minor bulge at the C5-6 level, which was not worthy of surgery. Dr. Zeide also opined that the surgeries and procedures were medically unnecessary and that the Plaintiff would have benefited from conservative treatment such as physical therapy, which had never been ordered by Dr. Roush. Dr. Zeide also opined that the Plaintiff suffered from a pre-existing and undiagnosed scoliosis. There was no evidence of mediated facet pain syndrome and this was proven by Dr. Zeide by the medical evidence and the Plaintiff’s presentation of symptoms.  

 

Over the course of six days, the jury listened to 12 witnesses including several before and after witnesses who were mainly family and friends of the Plaintiff to testify about how she was changed by the alleged incident. This also included the testimony of the four expert witnesses as stated above. The defense imported the theme of no good deed goes unpunished in voir dire, opening statement and closing argument.   

 

The Plaintiff asked the jury for an award of damages of approximately $500,000.00 and left the element of future pain and suffering up to the jurors’ common sense and own devices. While the case presented a tricky “he said, she said” scenario, after deliberating for about seventy-five minutes, the jury apparently believed the testimony of the Defendant massage therapist over that of the Plaintiff and rendered a complete defense verdict in his favor.  Read More.

Espino, Otto N., Kaplan, Jonah D.,

Rosenfeld & Nitch, PA (Nicole Rosenfeld and Heather Nitch),  Pita, Weber, Del Prado (Randy Weber),  Quintana Law, PA, (Brittany Quintana Marti)

Defense Verdict

Alleged Water Leak, Broward County , Defense Verdict, Rosenfeld & Nitch, PA, Pita, Weber, Del Prado, Quintana Law, PA

After a three (3) day jury trial, on December 15, 2022, Otto Espino and Jonah Kaplan obtained a full defense verdict on behalf of Universal Property and Casualty for a covered claim in a First-Party Property matter styled Laura Arroyo v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co.

The lawsuit arose, due to a an alleged water leak sustained by Universal’s Insured (Laura Arroy) to a hallway bathroom that allegedly damaged laminate flooring in the bathroom, hallway and the adjoining bedrooms. After receipt of the claim, Universal adjusted the claim and extended coverage. Prior to the lawsuit, Universal paid Plaintiff for Coverage A Dwelling in the gross amount of $16,168.73. During the pre-suit claim adjustment period, Plaintiff provided a Sworn Proof of Loss (“SPOL’) indicating a demand of $67,665.08. At trial, Plaintiff presented another estimate for a reduced amount. The Plaintiff relied upon this contractor as her damage expert.

The evidence was presented that Universal complied with the Policy payment conditions by issuing payment for the full amount of damages. Mr. Espino successfully argued that the Insured/Plaintiff was not entitled to any further compensation under the Policy. After two hours of deliberations, the jury fully agreed and entered a full defense verdict.  Read More.

Ruiz, Juan A., Hamilton, Benjamin B

Morgan and Morgan (Michael J. Smith and Meranda Landes)

Favorable Verdict

On February 2, 2023, Senior Partner Juan Ruiz, Esq., and Associate Benjamin Hamilton, Esq., obtained a favorable result in a motor vehicle accident matter styled Plaintiff v. Defendant Driver in the Fifth Circuit Court in and for Lake County, Florida. Plaintiff sought damages for past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, disability, disfigurement, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.

The defense admitted liability and moved forward to a four-day jury trial on causation, permanency and damages. At trial, Plaintiff asked the jury for $1.8 million. The jury returned a verdict of $46,000 and specifically found that Plaintiff did not suffer any permanent injury.  Plaintiff alleged that while she was parked exiting a shopping center, she was struck on the driver’s side of her SUV by Defendant Driver’s pickup truck travelling at 35mph. She claimed to have sustained three herniated discs in her spine as a result of the incident.  Plaintiff asked the jury for $1.8 million using a per diem argument that Plaintiff should be awarded $5 per hour for the two years since the accident and $3.00 per hour for the estimated 45 years she is projected to live under Mortality Table guidelines. The jury awarded Plaintiff only $46,000 for past medical bills. The jury found no permanent injury and did not award damages for future medical bills or pain and suffering. Read More.

Teijelo, Alec A; Perez, Anthony

Your Insurance Attorney, PLLC

Dismissal with Prejudice 

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo Esq., secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Truviewmold, LLC a/a/o Sue Demmings v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered after Hurricane Irma pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, maintaining the position that the mold testing services provided by Plaintiff would only be covered if the costs were a result of a covered peril, and that the underlying claim was not covered by the policy, as its ability to investigate the loss had been prejudiced by a failure to report the damage until two years after the hurricane. Just before the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More

Teijelo, Alec A; Perez, Anthony

Your Insurance Attorney, PLLC

Dismissal with Prejudice 

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Restoration Cleaning Services, Inc. a/a/o Miriam Muniz v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered after Tropical Storm Gordon pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, based on the policy’s exclusion for damage cause by wear and tear, the lack of any evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rain water to enter the property, and the position that the tarp services provided by Plaintiff would only be covered if the costs were a result of a covered peril. Before the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case.  Read More

Teijelo, Alec A; Perez, Anthony

Your Insurance Attorney, PLLC

Summary:

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo Esq., obtained a dismissal in the matter styled Restoration Doctor, Inc. a/a/o Miriam Muniz v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered after Tropical Storm Gordon pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, based on the policy’s exclusion for damage cause by wear and tear, the lack of any evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rain water to enter the property, and the position that the shrink-wrap services provided by Plaintiff would only be covered if the costs were a result of a covered peril. Following receipt of the motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More

Perez, Anthony; Teijelo, Alec A

Behnejad Law, PLLC  

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Restoration 911 Mitigation LLC a/a/o Ariel Arcia v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to water mitigation services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Plaintiff alleged that it was entitled to proceeds under the reasonable emergency measures provision of the policy, which covers necessary measures taken to protect property from further damage. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, maintaining the position that the services rendered by Plaintiff, 19 months after the date of loss, were not reasonable, necessary, or emergency, and therefore not covered by the policy. Following receipt of the motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More

Teijelo, Alec A; Perez, Anthony

Behnejad Law, PLLC  

Dismissal with Prejudice 

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Beacon Management Services LLC a/a/o Ariel Arcia v. Defendant Insurance Company.  Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to mold remediation services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Plaintiff alleged that it was entitled to proceeds under the policy’s additional coverage for fungi, wet or dry rot, yeast, or bacteria. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, maintaining the position that the underlying loss was excluded from coverage, and additional coverage that could relate to mold remediation only applies when the costs are the result of a covered peril. Just before the hearing on the motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case.  Read More