Ramirez v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 29 October 2021 |
Docket Number | 20-cv-22324-MARTINEZ |
Parties | JULIO RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company's Motion for Final Summary Judgment or Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the Alternative as to Roof Damages (“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment”), (ECF No. 28). The Court has reviewed Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise fully advised of the premises. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Where the facts are in dispute, they are taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the non-movant.
This case arises out of an insurance coverage dispute between Plaintiff Julio Ramirez and his insurer, Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company. Defendant issued Plaintiff policy number DFS1264683, which had an effective term coverage for the property located at 5869 Southwest 16th Street, Miami Florida 33155 (the “Property”) from June 29 2017, to June 29, 2018 (the “Policy”).[1] The Policy contained, at the time of the loss and in pertinent part, the following relevant condition in the event of loss or damage:
(Notice of Removal, Ex. A., at 50, ECF No. 1-2.)
Plaintiff sues for residential property insurance benefits for damages caused by Hurricane Irma on September 10, 2017. Plaintiff alleges he suffered a property loss “as a result of wind and water damage” from Hurricane Irma, which caused damage to the roof and exterior and water damage to the interior of the Property. (Compl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 1-2, at 6.)
Approximately twenty months later, on or about May 20, 2019, Plaintiff first notified Defendant of his claim for damages as a result of the loss. (Sarver Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 29-1.) On June 19, 2019, Mark Stanley, an independent adjuster for Professional Adjusting Services, inspected the Property on behalf of the Defendant. (Id. ¶ 8.) On September 3, 2019, Defendant issued a coverage determination letter, indicating that Mr. Stanley had observed wind, wear and tear, and deterioration damage to the roof tile, as well as interior water damage to portions of the interior as a result thereof. (Id. ¶ 9.) Based on these observations and because Plaintiff's insurance policy contained wind, wear and tear, and deterioration exclusions, Defendant denied coverage. (Id. ¶ 11.)
On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel provided Defendant with a demand letter, requesting a remittance in the amount of $189, 521.27 and attaching an estimate provided by iClaims Consulting Inc. (See Notice of Removal Ex. B, ECF No. 1-3.) Of the $189, 521.27, $108, 542.17 is associated with replacement of the tile and flat roof of the Property. (Id.; see also Sarver Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 29-1.)
On May 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. (See generally Notice of Removal, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-2.)
On June 4, 2020, Defendant timely removed this action to federal court. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) According to Defendant, throughout the course of discovery, Plaintiff failed to serve his initial disclosures, respond to Defendant's requests for production and interrogatories, serve any expert disclosures or reports, and respond to Defendant's expert discovery requests. (See Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (the “SOMF”) Ex. 3-4, ECF Nos. 29-3, 29-4.) Plaintiff does not deny these assertions. (See Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 32.) On May 24, 2021, Defendant moved for final summary judgment against Plaintiff or, in the alternative, partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff's alleged roof damage as excluded under the policy. (See Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 28.)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a court shall grant summary judgment if “the depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . ., or other materials . . . show . . . that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), (c). Rule 56 requires entry of summary judgment “after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
“The moving party bears the initial burden to show, by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at trial.” Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991); accord Kol B'Seder, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London Subscribing to Certificate No. 154766 Under Cont. No. B0621MASRSWV15BND, 766 Fed.Appx. 795, 798 (11th Cir. 2019). “Only when that burden has been met does the burden shift to the non-moving party to demonstrate that there is indeed a material issue of fact that precludes summary judgment.” Clark, 929 F.2d at 608. When the moving party has carried its burden, the party opposing summary judgment must do more than show that there is “metaphysical doubt” as to any material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Indeed, Rule 56 “requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and, by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324 (emphasis added); Kol B'Seder, Inc., 766 Fed.Appx. at 798.
At summary judgment, courts are required to view the evidence and draw inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Matsushita Elec. Indus., 475 U.S. at 586; Chapman v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 861 F.2d 1515, 1518 (11th Cir. 1988). “All reasonable inferences arising from the undisputed facts should be made in favor of the nonmovant. Chapman, 861 F.2d at 1518. “However, an inference based on speculation and conjecture is not reasonable.” Id. (citing Blackston v. Shook & Fletcher Insulation Co., 764 F.2d 1480, 1482 (11th Cir. 1985)). “Speculation does not create a genuine issue of fact; instead, it creates a false issue, the demolition of which is a primary goal of summary judgment.” Cordoba v. Dillard's, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 1181 (11th Cir. 2005). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.'” See Matsushita Elec. Indus., 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Servs. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 270 (1968)).
Defendant moves for final summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff failed to comply with an obligation outlined in the Policy: that Plaintiff failed to provide “prompt notice” of the alleged loss and Plaintiff cannot overcome the presumption of prejudice to Defendant. (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 6-8, ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff, conceding that his notice was untimely, argues that
Defendant suffered no prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to provide notice because Defendant was able to inspect the Property and Plaintiff's compliance with Defendant's claim investigation bars Defendant's late notice argument. (Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 12-14.)
A. The Court Deems Plaintiff to Have Admitted Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Fact Because Plaintiff Failed to Controvert Undisputed Facts in A Separately Filed Statement of Material Facts as Required by Southern District of Florida Local Rule 56.1; Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Fact Is, Therefore, Stricken; No Genuine Dispute of Material Facts Exists
Before turning to the merits of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court briefly addresses Plaintiff's failure to controvert Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, (SOMF, ECF No. 29), as required by Southern District of Florida Local Rules, see generally S.D Fla. L.R. 56.1. Local Rule 56.1(a) requires that “[a] motion for summary judgment and the opposition to it shall each be accompanied by a separate and contemporaneously filed and served Statement of Material Facts.” S.D. Fla. L.R. 56.1(a) (emphasis added). Subsection (b) outlines the form the Statement of Material Facts is to take: “All statements of...
To continue reading
Request your trial