just an fyi

[L Kaplan]

KING COLE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. USPLATE GLASS INSURANCE COMPANY

King Cole Condominium Association, Inc., Appellant,
v.
USPlate Glass Insurance Company, Appellee.

No. 3D09-2390.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed August 18, 2010.

Katzman Garfinkel Rosembaum and Richard Valuntas and Joseph W. Jassen, III, for appellant.

Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig and Anthony J. Russo and L. Andrew Watson, for appellee.

Before CORTIÑAS and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The summary judgment for the defendant insurer entered below is reversed because of the existence of genuine issues of material fact concerning the coverage and alleged defenses, including but not limited to compliance with the notice and proof of loss provisions of the policy. See Bankers Ins. Co. v. Macias, 475 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1985); Solano v. Fed. Title & Ins. Co., 229 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Bray & Gillespie IX, LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1513400 (M.D. Fla. 2009).

Reversed and remanded.

CORTIÑAS, J., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge, concur.

ROTHENBERG, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part).

This case arises out of the property damage suffered by King Cole Condominium Association, Inc. ("the insured") during Hurricane Wilma in October 2005. At that time, USPlate Glass Insurance Company ("USPlate") provided the insured with coverage falling into two categories relevant to this appeal. First, USPlate provided principal coverage for damage to the insured's plate glass windows and sliding glass doors. Second, USPlate provided the insured with supplemental exterior coverage of "up to $75 per covered loss for . . . boarding up openings." At the present time, the insured claims that USPlate has failed to pay $179,096.82 due under the principal portion of the policy, and $5,100 under the supplemental "board-up" provision.

More than two years after the storm, while the parties were in the midst of a peculiar exchange of correspondence (discussed in further detail below), the insured sued USPlate for breach of contract. USPlate moved for summary judgment, arguing that the insured failed to give proper notice and precipitously filed suit. The trial court granted USPlate's motion, and this appeal followed.

The majority reverses the trial court's order on the basis that there exist genuine issues of material fact, thus precluding summary judgment. I concur with the majority opinion as to the insured's claim for $5,100 in "board-up" repairs under the supplemental coverage provided by USPlate. The record reflects multiple and significant issues of fact relating to the question of whether the insured was in compliance with the notice and proof of loss provisions of this limited category of the insured's claim, and therefore, in part, the trial court's decision should be reversed.

However, to the extent the majority opinion addresses the insured's claim for an additional $179,096.82 for damages to its plate glass windows and sliding glass doors under USPlate's principal coverage, I must respectfully dissent. In the days following Hurricane Wilma, USPlate authorized the insured to retain a glazier of its choosing to complete any necessary glass replacements or repairs. The glazier provided the insured with an estimate, stating that the job should cost $104,928.48. The insured forwarded the estimate to USPlate, which paid the amount in full in two installments.

On January 13, 2006, in a letter to the insured accompanying the second payment, USPlate indicated a belief that it had fulfilled its policy obligations related to the damage caused by Hurricane Wilma. Nevertheless, the letter invited the insured to notify USPlate of any other damages there may have been, offering to reopen the claim should the need arise. USPlate's letter specifically stated: "This claim is now closed. If you should find any additional damage as a direct result of Hurricane Wilma we will reopen the claim as necessary." The insured's initial response to this letter was more than two years of silence.

Finally, on January 29, 2008, counsel for the insured broke that silence by sending USPlate a cryptic letter which asserted that USPlate did "not adequately compensate" the insured. The letter did not provide the amount of compensation that was lacking. The letter did not specify whether the lacking compensation was related to the insured's principal plate glass damages or to its supplemental "board-up" claims. The letter included no attachments or invoices. Nevertheless, the letter demanded payment of some unknown amount directly to counsel for the insured's law firm with the law firm as the sole payee. Counsel for the insured, by way of this letter, gave USPlate thirty days to respond.

Less than thirty days later, on February 25, 2008, USPlate responded, asking counsel for the insured to verify that he was authorized to represent the insured and noting that it had "not received any further claim or communication from [the insured]" after paying $104,928.48 more than two years earlier. However, unbeknownst to USPlate, and despite counsel for the insured's letter providing USPlate with thirty days to respond to its demand for payment of an unspecified amount for unspecified damages, the insured had already filed suit almost three weeks earlier.

The trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of USPlate was based on a simple determination—that the insured's January 2008 letter failed to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the insured complied with the policy by providing USPlate with notice of its additional claims before filing suit. The portion of the trial court's order that addresses the insured's current claim for $179,096.82 under the principal category of its coverage should be affirmed. The trial court's order is subject to de novo review. Rakusin Law Firm v. Estate of Dennis, 27 So. 3d 166, 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

In the aftermath of Hurricane Wilma, the insured notified USPlate that it had suffered damage to its covered property and would require reimbursement for "board-up" repairs and glass replacement. In 2006, the insured presented USPlate with an estimate stating that the glass replacements and repairs would cost $104,928.48. USPlate paid this amount in full, sending a letter along with the payment which stated that if notified of additional damages, USPlate would continue to work with the insured to resolve the situation. The insured cashed the check and remained silent for more than two years.

In January 2008, when the insured finally got around to corresponding with USPlate, a review of the record reflects that USPlate may have been on notice of the insured's board-up claim. Therefore, I agree with the majority that as to the $5,100 board-up claim, factual issues persist that prevent summary judgment. However, the undisputed facts reveal that the insured opted to file suit before notifying USPlate in any way that itwas claiming $179,096.82 in glass replacement and repair costs beyond the $104,928.48 that USPlate had already paid. In fact, as the insured readily admits, it failed to notify USPlate that it had glass damages beyond the $104,928.48 USPlate paid in 2006, or provide USPlate with a single invoice related to this additional amount until after the lawsuit was filed.

"The failure of an insured to give a timely notice of loss in contravention of a policy provision is a legal basis for the denial of recovery under the policy." Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Waldrep, 400 So. 2d 782, 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Furthermore, such a breach relieves the insurer of its obligation to defend the subsequent lawsuit. City Mgmt. Group Corp. v. Am. Reliance Ins. Co., 528 So. 2d 1299, 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Here, the policy clearly provides that prior to bringing suit, the insured was required to notify USPlate of its loss.

When the insured provided USPlate with the estimate from the glazier, USPlate not only paid the amount in full, it informed the insured that it considered the claim closed unless the insured notified USPlate of any additional damages. The insured cashed the check and remained silent for more than two years. Accordingly, USPlate could not know that its insured was claiming nearly $200,000 in additional damages. Once the lawsuit was filed and litigation had commenced, the insured finally saw fit to provide USPlate with documentation indicating that it had paid out and now required reimbursement of an additional $179,096.82 in glass replacements and repairs. I conclude that the legal effect of these undisputed facts was to provide USPlate with a basis upon which to deny recovery of any post-suit claim for losses, and to relieve USPlate of its obligation to defend such a lawsuit. Thus, the trial court's order granting summary judgment as to the insured's post-suit claim for $179,096.82 in additional glass replacement and repairs was appropriate.

Therefore, to the extent that the majority opinion addresses the insured's claim for an additional $179,096.82 for damages to its plate glass windows and sliding glass doors pursuant to USPlate's principal coverage, I must respectfully dissent. The matter should be remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether the insured provided USPlate with adequate notice and proof of its $5,100 "board-up" claim, but in all other respects, the trial court's order should be affirmed.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

 

 

LARRY KAPLAN

900 Bay Drive, Residence 1001

Miami Beach FL 33141. USA

Cell.305-458-3868, Home.305-864-2798, Work.305-430-0550

Skat...@bellsouth.net

 

 

 

[Marinell Montoya]

Have you read this, and if so, what do you make of its material content?  I do recommend everyone read it.  

Because of the way this opinion is written, US Plate has enough teeth to appeal the appeal.  At the end of the day, how much money does that mean for the King Cole vs. what we are paying lawyers.  Even if we engaged these attorneys on a contingency basis, they take a % in fees PLUS costs.  If we indeed suffer an additional 179K in damages plus the 5100 board up, obviously we are not collecting that in whole, because we've paid lawyers plus costs.  Where is this money going to come from for all those repairs.  If you read carefully you will see that the King Cole made a gaggle of errors that led into legislation, perhaps prematurely, which resulted in attorney's fees.  (One of them is failure to provide the insurance company with required financial documents showing damage and repairs).

Again, while this may be a victory on paper, was it the best business decision in the long run.  Again, this is why I strongly believe we need professionals running our association, who have had years of experience with just this kind of situation.  

Just food for thought . . . . 

The proof will be in what we actually collect and what we do with it.

When the insured provided USPlate with the estimate from the glazier, USPlate not only paid the amount in full, it informed the insured that it considered the claim closed unless the insured notified USPlate of any additional damages.The insured cashed the check and remained silent for more than two years. Accordingly, USPlate could not know that its insured was claiming nearly $200,000 in additional damages. Once the lawsuit was filed and litigation had commenced, the insured finally saw fit to provide USPlate with documentation indicating that it had paid out and now required reimbursement of an additional $179,096.82 in glass replacements and repairs. I conclude that the legal effect of these undisputed facts was to provide USPlate with a basis upon which to deny recovery of any post-suit claim for losses, and to relieve USPlate of its obligation to defend such a lawsuit. Thus, the trial court's order granting summary judgment as to the insured's post-suit claim for $179,096.82 in additional glass replacement and repairs was appropriate.

Therefore, to the extent that the majority opinion addresses the insured's claim for an additional $179,096.82 for damages to its plate glass windows and sliding glass doors pursuant to USPlate's principal coverage, I must respectfully dissent. The matter should be remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether the insured provided USPlate with adequate notice and proof of its $5,100 "board-up" claim, but in all other respects, the trial court's order should be affirmed.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

 

 

LARRY KAPLAN

900 Bay Drive, Residence 1001

Miami Beach FL 33141. USA

Cell.305-458-3868, Home.305-864-2798, Work.305-430-0550

Skat...@bellsouth.net

 

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "KINGCOLEgroup".
 
To post to this group send email to: --->> king...@googlegroups.com <<---
or just --->> Reply <<--- to this message
 
-- This Group is not managed by or created by the King Cole Board of Directors --
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
kingcole+u...@googlegroups.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/kingcole?hl=en?hl=en

[Greg Burkey]

Am I reading this wrong? It sounds to me like the court is saying that the  KK is only entitled to the $5100 and not the $179,000.  No?

-----Original Message-----
From: Marinell Montoya <nell...@aol.com>
To: king...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 19, 2010 11:39 am
Subject: Re: [KingColeCondo:1899] just an fyi

Have you read this, and if so, what do you make of its material content?  I do recommend everyone read it.  

Because of the way this opinion is written, US Plate has enough teeth to appeal the appeal.  At the end of the day, how much money does that mean for the King Cole vs. what we are paying lawyers.  Even if we engaged these attorneys on a contingency basis, they take a % in fees PLUS costs.  If we indeed suffer an additional 179K in damages plus the 5100 board up, obviously we are not collecting that in whole, because we've paid lawyers plus costs.  Where is this money going to come from for all those repairs.  If you read carefully you will see that the King Cole made a gaggle of errors that led into legislation, perhaps prematurely, which resulted in attorney's fees.  (One of them is failure to provide the insurance company with required financial documents showing damage and repairs).

Again, while this may be a victory on paper, was it the best business decision in the long run.  Again, this is why I strongly believe we need professionals running our association, who have had years of experience with just this kind of situation.  

Just food for thought . . . . 

The proof will be in what we actually collect and what we do with it.

On Aug 19, 2010, at 10:41 AM, L Kaplan wrote:

KING COLE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. USPLATE GLASS INSURANCE COMPANY

King Cole Condominium Association, Inc., Appellant,
v.
USPlate Glass Insurance Company, Appellee.

No. 3D09-2390.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed August 18, 2010.

Katzman Garfinkel Rosembaum and Richard Valuntas and Joseph W. Jassen, III, for appellant.

Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig and Anthony J. Russo and L. Andrew Watson, for appellee.

Before CORTIAS and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The summary judgment for the defendant insurer entered below is reversed because of the existence of genuine issues of material fact concerning the coverage and alleged defenses, including but not limited to compliance with the notice and proof of loss provisions of the policy. See Bankers Ins. Co. v. Macias, 475 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1985); Solano v. Fed. Title & Ins. Co., 229 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Bray & Gillespie IX, LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1513400 (M.D. Fla. 2009).

Reversed and remanded.

CORTIAS, J., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge, concur.

ROTHENBERG, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part).

This case arises out of the property damage suffered by King Cole Condominium Association, Inc. ("the insured") during Hurricane Wilma in October 2005. At that time, USPlate Glass Insurance Company ("USPlate") provided the insured with coverage falling into two categories relevant to this appeal. First, USPlate provided principal coverage for damage to the insured's plate glass windows and sliding glass doors. Second, USPlate provided the insured with supplemental exterior coverage of "up to $75 per covered loss for . . . boarding up openings." At the present time, the insured claims that USPlate has failed to pay $179,096.82 due under the principal portion of the policy, and $5,100 under the supplemental "board-up" provision.

More than two years after the storm, while the parties were in the midst of a peculiar exchange of correspondence (discussed in further detail below), the insured sued USPlate for breach of contract. USPlate moved for summary judgment, arguing that the insured failed to give proper notice and precipitously filed suit. The trial court granted USPlate's motion, and this appeal followed.

The majority reverses the trial court's order on the basis that there exist genuine issues of material fact, thus precluding summary judgment. I concur with the majority opinion as to the insured's claim for $5,100 in "board-up" repairs under the supplemental coverage provided by USPlate. The record reflects multiple and significant issues of fact relating to the question of whether the insured was in compliance with the notice and proof of loss provisions of this limited category of the insured's claim, and therefore, in part, the trial court's decision should be reversed.

However, to the extent the majority opinion addresses the insured's claim for an additional $179,096.82 for damages to its plate glass windows and sliding glass doors under USPlate's principal coverage, I must respectfully dissent. In the days following Hurricane Wilma, USPlate authorized the insured to retain a glazier of its choosing to complete any necessary glass replacements or repairs. The glazier provided the insured with an estimate, stating that the job should cost $104,928.48. The insured forwarded the estimate to USPlate, which paid the amount in full in two installments.

On January 13, 2006, in a letter to the insured accompanying the second payment, USPlate indicated a belief that it had fulfilled its policy obligations related to the damage caused by Hurricane Wilma. Nevertheless, the letter invited the insured to notify USPlate of any other damages there may have been, offering to reopen the claim should the need arise. USPlate's letter specifically stated: "This claim is now closed. If you should find any additional damage as a direct result of Hurricane Wilma we will reopen the claim as necessary." The insured's initial response to this letter was more than two years of silence.

Finally, on January 29, 2008, counsel for the insured broke that silence by sending USPlate a cryptic letter which asserted that USPlate did "not adequately compensate" the insured. The letter did not provide the amount of compensation that was lacking. The letter did not specify whether the lacking compensation was related to the insured's principal plate glass damages or to its supplemental "board-up" claims. The letter included no attachments or invoices. Nevertheless, the letter demanded payment of some unknown amount directly to counsel for the insured's law firm with the law firm as the sole payee. Counsel for the insured, by way of this letter, gave USPlate thirty days to respond.

Less than thirty days later, on February 25, 2008, USPlate responded, asking counsel for the insured to verify that he was authorized to represent the insured and noting that it had "not received any further claim or communication from [the insured]" after paying $104,928.48 more than two years earlier. However, unbeknownst to USPlate, and despite counsel for the insured's letter providing USPlate with thirty days to respond to its demand for payment of an unspecified amount for unspecified damages, the insured had already filed suit almost three weeks earlier.

The trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of USPlate was based on a simple determinationhat the insured's January 2008 letter failed to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the insured complied with the policy by providing USPlate with notice of its additional claims before filing suit. The portion of the trial court's order that addresses the insured's current claim for $179,096.82 under the principal category of its coverage should be affirmed. The trial court's order is subject to de novo review. Rakusin Law Firm v. Estate of Dennis, 27 So. 3d 166, 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

[Ileana Cruz]

You're reading it right.  It's not much of a victory.  On the one hand, the opinion affirms the lower court's finding that the King Cole is not entitled to the $179k, given what appears to have been the mismanagement of reporting the additional claims to the insurance company.  On the other hand, the appeals court reversed that part of the lower court's order that cut off the King Cole's right to make a claim for the $5,100.  To actually obtain the $5,100, however, King Cole must now move for a hearing back in the lower court during which it'll have to present sufficient evidence to persuade the judge that it's entitled to an award in that amount.  So, basically, the opinion freed up the King Cole to continue to go after $5,100.
 

---

To: king...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [KingColeCondo:1900] just an fyi
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:43:16 -0400
From: gbi...@aol.com

[Greg Burkey]

Thanks I was actually hoping that I was wrong. I wonder if that 179K is part of the debt we're paying for with the new assessment. I imagine its all part of one pot. 

[Marinell Montoya]

oh no, don't kid yourself.  That decision wasn't handed down till Aug. 18 (yesterday)  and the other was on the table before then.  What concerns me, is if we have all these glass problems, as storm season is here, why haven't the homeowners been alerted, even though it is the buildings responsibility to maintain all the glass?  Seeing that, by this lawsuit against US Plate, they had prior knowledge of inferior work.

The recurring theme here is that there is something very wrong with the King Cole and its financial records.

[L Kaplan]

Marinell – the document clearly states that this has to do with insurance coverage for the storm damage that has already been corrected.  The association is merely trying to get full re-imbursement. 

 

Has nothing to do with financial records nor inferior work. 

 

Am I missing something?

[wtchu...@aol.com]

Mr KAPLAN and if we don't get reimbursment we need to pay it correct? Where is this money going to come from? Qe should have been covered for damages and not have to be suing. After all we pay insurance don't we. So now we are paying anrd spending on legal fees. Again spending our money easily. According to what I read if things were done correctly this wouldn't have happened. Stop wasting money.

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

---

From: "L Kaplan" <skat...@bellsouth.net>

Sender: king...@googlegroups.com

Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:31:50 -0400

To: <king...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: king...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: [KingColeCondo:1904] just an fyi

[charbelb]

Hello, all. I think there is some confusion about the meaning of this
judgment.

There are actually two "opinions" contained in the text provided
above. The first paragraph (following the words "per curiam") is the
(very brief) majority opinion. The remainder is the partially
dissenting opinion of Judge Rothenberg. The majority opinion is what
really matters, although the "dissent" suggests that the Association
may not have a very good case. (Part of the confusion may stem from
the formatting of the original post. I think the PDF copy of the
opinions here [http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/opinions/3D09-2390.pdf]
makes the distinction between the two opinions a little more obvious.)

Anyone who has been following this case closely should feel free to
correct me, but from what I can gather, apparently the trial court had
granted summary judgment in favor of USPlate. Summary judgment is
granted in favor of a defendant when the court decides that there is
no genuine issue as to any "material fact" and that the defendant is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. What this means is that the
trial court had decided that, even if all the alleged acts presented
by the Association against the insurer were true, the law didn't
entitle the Association to any claim.

The appeals court "reversed" the trial court's decision in full, and
"remanded" the case back to the trial court for further consideration.
This means that the insurer's motion for summary judgment is
effectively denied, and that the trial court must move forward with
the case. That's the only thing that this opinion did. It didn't award
or deny any damages, or limit the Association's case in any way. It
merely allows the case to move forward at the trial court level. It's
certainly a victory for the Association, but there's a long road
ahead.

Judge Rothenberg's dissent doesn't directly impact the Association's
case (since he was outvoted by the other two judges), although his
tone does seem to suggest that the Association's case is very weak
when it comes to the $179,000+. (He agrees with the majority that
there may be a valid claim asserted as to the $5100.) If you accept
what he wrote at face value, it certainly sounds like the Association
may have dropped a big ball or two on this one. But thankfully he's
not the one deciding the issue, at least right now. That will be up to
the trial court. Again, there's probably still a long way to go on
this one.

On Aug 19, 7:28 pm, Marinell Montoya <nell0...@aol.com> wrote:
> oh no, don't kid yourself.  That decision wasn't handed down till Aug. 18 (yesterday)  and the other was on the table before then.  What concerns me, is if we have all these glass problems, as storm season is here, why haven't the homeowners been alerted, even though it is the buildings responsibility to maintain all the glass?  Seeing that, by this lawsuit against US Plate, they had prior knowledge of inferior work.
>
> The recurring theme here is that there is something very wrong with the King Cole and its financial records.
>
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 6:56 PM, Greg Burkey wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thanks I was actually hoping that I was wrong. I wonder if that 179K is part of the debt we're paying for with the new assessment. I imagine its all part of one pot.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ileana Cruz <ileana_c...@hotmail.com>
> > To: king...@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, Aug 19, 2010 6:29 pm
> > Subject: RE: [KingColeCondo:1901] just an fyi
>
> > You're reading it right.  It's not much of a victory.  On the one hand, the opinion affirms the lower court's finding that the King Cole is not entitled to the $179k, given what appears to have been the mismanagement of reporting the additional claims to the insurance company.  On the other hand, the appeals court reversed that part of the lower court's order that cut off the King Cole's right to make a claim for the $5,100.  To actually obtain the $5,100, however, King Cole must now move for a hearing back in the lower court during which it'll have to present sufficient evidence to persuade the judge that it's entitled to an award in that amount.  So, basically, the opinion freed up the King Cole to continue to go after $5,100.
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Greg Burkey]

Thanks for that clarification. So KK still has a chance to recover that money. 

-- 

[Marinell Montoya]

Yes, you are most definitely missing something.  The opinion clearly states the reason the 179K was denied.  I would copy and repost - but I think everyone should read it for themselves.  The King Cole, after two years, failed to supply the insurance company with proper documentation of damages and repairs, plus a whole host of other "peculiar" things.  This is the opinion of the Appellate Court.  Best response to your posting, Larry, is Ms. Ileana Cruz's a few posts below.

The inferior work to which I state is the work that was contracted to be done by the King Cole, and reimbursed by US Plate, after the storm, not anything to do with the Appellate Court's decision.  It is my statement.  The BoD was notified by, at that time civilian, Bob Bender, of the inferior work.  Mr. Bender had his sliding glass door work repaired.  I am wondering how many others that weren't as loud as Mr. Bender got theirs repaired properly.  My thoughts go to this storm season, if a unit homeowner suffers damage and it happens to be a unit the Association claims work had been repaired on, yet was never corrected, what is our liability?  I believe the company that did the inferior work was Arco Glass, which, to the best of my knowledge, the King Cole received some restitution.

Point is, the King Cole is being vastly mismanaged.  I am not assigning any malice on the part of the King Cole to this fact, just that it is happening and we should seek to fix it.  I think we need to start, at the very least, interviewing large, reputable management companies and just hear them out.  

[Ileana Cruz]

Makes sense.  Thanks for clarifying.
 
> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 08:57:38 -0700

> Subject: [KingColeCondo:1906] Re: just an fyi

> From: char...@gmail.com
> To: king...@googlegroups.com

[Marinell Montoya]

Well stated.  

My only point fellow homeowners, is that these kind of blunders should not continue.  We need professional help.

[Marinell Montoya]

Would you say that it is a fair statement even if we won the 179K, in a new trial, that this opinion gives US Plate enough "teeth" to appeal again?

[charbelb]

The insurer could certainly appeal this decision, although at this
point it would involve going to the Florida Supreme Court. I wouldn't
be totally surprised if they did, since it doesn't cost them anything
other than additional legal fees, and since the dissenting opinion
makes a forceful case for why the Association and its lawyers may have
seriously fouled up a large part of their claim.

Either way, it isn't over by a long shot. One thing seems clear
though: There appears to have been some very poor decision-making by
the Association and/or its lawyers. I'd love to hear their perspective
on this.