throbber
Filing # 126414088 E-Filed 05/07/2021 04:02:11 PM
`
`Case Number: CACE-2l—009293 Division: 09
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH
`
`JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
`
`BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`JOEL SCHUTTE, JR.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CASE NO:
`
`VS.
`
`as
`FITZROY FLETCHER, DEV MOTWANI,
`General Partner of CHIEFTAIN ATLANTA, LP, a
`Georgia Limited Partnership and STATE FARM
`MUTUAL
`AUTOMOBILE
`INSURANCE
`
`COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`/
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RE UEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT STATE FARM
`
`MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
`
`PURSUANT to Rule 1.370, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant is hereby
`
`requested to admit the truth of these matters hereinafter set forth within forty-five (45) days after
`
`service hereof by answering in writing and admitting or denying the following:
`
`1.
`
`At all times material to the Complaint, Defendant was and is a foreign corporation
`
`licensed to do business in the State of Florida and engaged in the business of
`
`automobile insurance.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant maintains agents in Broward County, Florida, for the transacting of its
`
`customary business in Broward County, Florida.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant
`
`insured NON-PARTY, PETER Y. YAN under an automobile
`
`insurance policy which provides UM coverage for the subject accident.
`
`4.
`
`The above-described automobile policy issued by the Defendant was in full force
`
`and effect for the subject accident of and provides UM coverage for bodily
`
`injuries sustained by the Plaintiff in the subject accident.
`
`5.
`
`Venue lies in BROWARD, Florida for this action.
`
`*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 05/07/2021 04:02:07 PM.****
`
`

`

`The above-styled Court, in and for BROWARD, Florida, has jurisdiction over the
`
`claim of the Plaintiff against Defendant.
`
`Defendant has no coverage defense to Plaintiff’ s UM claims except
`
`that
`
`it
`
`maintains its policy does not provide UM coverage for any punitive damages
`
`awarded Defendant.
`
`Defendant has not denied coverage except to claim that
`
`its policy does not
`
`provide UM coverage for any punitive damages awarded against, Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff’ s policy with Defendant is required to conform to all requirements of
`
`Florida Statute 627.727.
`
`Plaintiff’ s policy with Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
`
`Company is required to provide all coverage described in Florida Statue 627.727.
`
`Plaintiff’ s policy with Defendant, even if it does not by its own terms comply
`
`with the requirements set forth in Florida Statute 627.727, is deemed to provide
`
`insurance for the payment of the required coverage and should be interpreted to
`
`meet the other requirements set forth in the Florida Statute 627.727.
`
`Under the Plaintiff’ s policy with Defendant the provisions of Florida Statue
`
`627.428 apply to any dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant concerning the
`
`coverage pursuant to Florida Statutes 627.727 (8).
`
`Shortly after the date of the accident Defendant was furnished with written notice
`
`of loss and the UM claims herein were otherwise timely made.
`
`Defendant
`
`denies that there is UM coverage under its policy for punitive
`
`damages.
`
`Florida public policy does not preclude insurance coverage of punitive damages
`
`when the insured is not personally at fault, but is merely vicariously liable for
`
`another’s wrong.
`
`The word “compensatory” was stricken from 627.727 effective October 1,
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`

`

`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`1989 after it had been added but before an earlier amendment took effect.
`
`Chapter 89-243, Section 1, Laws of Florida amended F.S. 627.727.
`
`F.S. 627.727(1)(1989) applies to the instant case since it involves an accident that
`
`occurred on November 9, 2017.
`
`F.S. 627.727 (1)(1989) provides in its relevant part (emphasis supplied):
`
`uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein or supplemental
`
`thereto for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally
`
`entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured
`
`motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including
`
`death, resulting therefrom.
`
`The insurance code, as well as insurance policies, will be construed in
`
`favor of the insured and insurance coverage.
`
`If the plain meaning of F.S. 627.727(1)(1989) is doubtful in any way, this
`
`Court should apply a meaning that results in broader UM coverage.
`
`A remedial statute must be construed to protect the insured (or victim)
`
`rather than the insurer.
`
`F.S. 627.727(1)(1989) is a remedial statute.
`
`Defendant has procedures for pursuing reimbursement for uninsured motorist for
`
`any and all damages it must pay under its UM coverage.
`
`Defendant is assiduous in its pursuit of reimbursement for uninsured motorist for
`
`any and all damages it must pay under its UM coverage.
`
`Defendant is diligent in its pursuit of reimbursement from uninsured motorist for
`
`any and all damages it must pay under its UM coverage.
`
`Defendant is organized in its pursuit of reimbursement from uninsured motorist
`
`for any and all damages it must pay under its UM coverage.
`
`

`

`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant encourages its adjusters financially in its pursuit of reimbursement
`
`from uninsured motorist for any and all damages it must pay under its UM
`
`coverage.
`
`Defendant has staff attorneys who are qualified to take action on its behalf in its
`
`pursuit of reimbursement from uninsured motorist for any and all damages on its
`
`behalf in its pursuit of reimbursement from uninsured motorist for any and all
`
`damages it must pay under its UM coverage.
`
`Defendant has legal expertise in its pursuit of reimbursement from uninsured
`
`motorist for any and all damages it must pay under its UM coverage.
`
`Defendant is competent in its pursuit of reimbursement from uninsured motorist
`
`for any and all damages it must pay under UM coverage.
`
`Defendant is thorough in its pursuit of reimbursement from uninsured motorist for
`
`any and all damages it must pay under its UM coverage.
`
`Defendant has claims adjusting expertise in its pursuit of reimbursement from
`
`uninsured motorist for any and all damages it must pay under its UM coverage.
`
`Defendant provides training materials to its adjusters on subrogation in its pursuit
`
`of reimbursement from uninsured motorist for any and all damages it must pay
`
`under its UM coverage.
`
`Defendant has been successful in obtaining reimbursement of subrogation money
`
`in its pursuit of reimbursement from uninsured motorist for any and all damages it
`
`must pay under its UM coverage
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished
`with the initial service of process to STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
`COMPANY.
`
`GED LAWYERS, LLP
`Attorneys for Plaintifl
`7171 North Federal Highway
`Boca Raton, FL 33487
`Telephone: (561) 995-1966
`
`

`

`Facsimile: (561) 241-0812
`Primary Email: litlaw@gedlawyers.com
`
`
`/s/Mark Packo
`
`Mark Packo, Esq.
`Florida Bar No.: 47546
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket