Dan Hildebran
unread,May 11, 2005, 1:48:14 PM5/11/05Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Starke News Brief
---Insurance concern claims mattress factory owner
intentionally set the fire that destroyed building
last year---
In what could be the first of many legal battles,
lawyers for the world's best known insurance brand are
scheduled to square off against representatives of
Starke's Call-A-Mattress factory, this Wednesday in a
Bradford County courtroom.
The insurance company is trying to void a policy
between itself and Call-A-Mattress, and avoid paying a
$924,910 claim resulting from an April 28, 2004 fire
that destroyed the Call-A-Mattress factory at 710
South Water Street, which was across the street from
the Orangewood Apartments and just north of Southside
Elementary School.
According to court papers, Lloyd’s wants Circuit Judge
Elzie S. Sanders to declare the policy void ab initio,
meaning from the time the contract was first purchased
in August 2003. The insurer claims the owner of the
company, Joel Zuckerberg "intentionally
misrepresented" on his insurance application, the risk
Lloyd’s took to insure the factory because, according
to Lloyd’s, Mr. Zuckerberg stated on the application
that the insured property was not exposed to
flammables, chemicals, or explosives. The insurer
said Mr. Zuckerberg admitted, during an investigation
after the fire, that the property was exposed to
diesel fuel, heating oil, kerosene heaters, Zem (a
volatile chemical), and gasoline.
"Had Underwriters known the true facts," wrote a
Lloyd’s lawyer in a court paper, "they would not have
issued the Lloyds' policy or would have issued it on
different terms or at a different premium or would not
have provided coverage with respect to the hazard
resulting in the loss."
But Lloyd's charge that Mr. Zuckerberg misrepresented
the risk of insuring his property was only the first
of four reasons the insurer gave that the policy
should be voided. The London-based company also said,
in court documents, that the Call-A-Mattress
management and owners failed to maintain smoke alarms
within the factory, and that Mr. Zuckerberg made false
statements to investigators following the fire.
But the most shocking allegation the insurer made in
its lawsuit against its ex-policyholder is that Joel
Zuckerberg himself set the fire that destroyed the
Call-A-Mattress factory on April 28th, 2004.
Allstate is listed as a plaintiff in the Lloyd's
lawsuit, and during Wednesday's hearing in Starke,
Judge Elzie S. Sanders is scheduled to consider a
motion by the defendant to sever the two plaintiffs’
claims. If Judge Sanders grants the defendant’s
motion, Allstate would have to file a separate
lawsuit, instead of joining the Lloyd's of London
action.
Deh