Legal Document: SWANTON, PAUL vs. AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

On May 05, 2023 a was filed involving a dispute between Swanton, Deborah, Swanton, Paul, and Amica Mutual Insurance Company, for Contracts in the District Court of Charlotte County.

Preview
Filing # 174794698 E-Filed 06/07/2023 12:14:19 PM

10783 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 20
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA

PAUL C. SWANTON AND DEBORAH A. CASE NO. 23001779CA
SWANTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
TRUSTEES OF THE PAUL C. SWANTON
AND DEBORAH A. SWANTON REVOCABLE
TRUST DTD 4/27/06

Plaintiffs,
v.

AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,

Defendant.
/

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant, Amica Mutual Insurance Company (“Amica Mutual”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1446(d), gives notice to the Clerk of the Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, in and for

Charlotte County, Florida, that on June 6, 2023, Amica Mutual, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and

1441, et. seq., by filing its Notice of Removal, removed this action to the United States District for

the Middle District of Florida, Ft. Myers Division.

Further, this court is requested to take no further action and to stay all proceedings before

this court, pursuant to 28. U.S.C.§ 1446(d), unless and until further Order is forthcoming from the

federal court, remanding this action to the state court if such action was improvidently removed.

Absent entry of a Remand Order issued by the federal court, the state court is divested of

jurisdiction over this cause and is requested to stay all actions and take no further proceedings.

Attached as Composite Exhibit “A” is a copy of the notice of removal filed with the federal court,

by and on behalf
of Amica.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via Florida’s

e-filing portal this 7" day of June 2023 to Plaintiffs’ Attorney, Anthony M. Dennis, Esq., Dennis

Kessler, PLLC 333 SE 2"! Avenue, Suite 2000, Miami, FL 33131; [adennis@dklawfl.com];

[jherrera@dklawfl.com]; [eservice@dklawfl.com].

COLODNY FASS
Attorneys for Defendant
1401 N.W. 136" Avenue, Suite 200
Sunrise, FL 33323
Telephone: (954) 492-4010
Facsimile: (954) 492-1144
By: 4s/ Amy L. Koltnow
AMY L. KOLTNOW, ESQ.
Fla. Bar. No. 899010
akoltnow@colodnyfass.com
Composite Exhibit “A”
Case 2:23-cv-00406 Document 1 Filed 06/07/23 Page 1 of 8 PagelD 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

PAUL C. SWANTON AND DEBORAH A. CASE NO.:
SWANTON INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
TRUSTEES OF THE PAUL C. SWANTON
AND DEBORAH A. SWANTON REVOCABLE
TRUST DTD 04/27/06,

Plaintiffs,
V.

AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.
/

DEFENDANT AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant, Amica Mutual Insurance Company (“Amica Mutual”), pursuant to

U.S.C. § 1441, et seq., removes this action from the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial

Circuit in Florida, in and for Charlotte County, Florida, Case No. 23001779CA, styled Paul

C. Swanton and Deborah A. Swanton Individually and as Trustees of The Paul C.

Swanton and Deborah A. Swanton Revocable Trust DTD 04/27/06 v. Amica Mutual

Insurance Company, and states:

l The State Court Case

4
On May 5, 2023, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against their homeowner's

insurance company, Amica Mutual, asserting a claim for breach of contract based on

property damages allegedly sustained to the insured residence located at 7155 South

Lake Drive, Englewood, Florida 34224.

2 The action is currently pending in the Circuit Court of the 20" Judicial Circuit

in and for Charlotte County, Florida, Case No. 23001779CA.

1
Case 2:23-cv-00406 Document 1 Filed 06/07/23 Page 2 of 8 PagelD 2

3 Amica Mutual was served with the initial complaint on May 9, 2023, and

within 30 days of being served with the lawsuit, on June 6, 2023, Amica Mutual has timely

filed this notice to remove the action from state court to federal court based upon the

plaintiffs’ supporting damage estimate in excess of $75,000.

4 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) and the Local Rules, a copy of all process,

pleadings, and orders on file in this case are attached as Composite Exhibit “A”.

5 The case is removed to the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, because the state court action was brought in

Charlotte County, Florida. 28 U.S.C. §§1441(a); 1446(a).

I. Standard of Review

6 Where there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, an action may be removed

from state court to federal court.

7 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides:

Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil
action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United
States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or
the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district
and division embracing the place where such action is pending.

28 U.S.C. § 1332 provides, in relevant part:

(a) The district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between—

(1) Citizens of different States;
Case 2:23-cv-00406 Document 1 Filed 06/07/23 Page 3 of 8 PagelD 3

9 Subsection (c) of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 provides:

(c) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title
-- (1) a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every
State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated
and of the State or foreign state where it has its principal
place of business .. .

10. 28 U.S. 1446(b) provides, in relevant part:

(1) The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be
filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through
service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting
forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding
is based, or within 30 days after the service of summons upon
the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court
and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever
period is shorter.

IL. Jurisdiction

A. Diversity Jurisdiction

11. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the

controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and is between

citizens of different states.

4
Citizenship of the Partie

12. There is complete diversity of citizenship.

13. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to include any allegation as to the specific

citizenship of Amica Mutual, or the location of its principal place of business.

14. The allegations of diversity, however, are not required to exist in the

complaint. This court may consider other filings, in addition to the complaint to determine

Amica Mutual's citizenship. Huchon v. Jankowski, 2007 WL 221421 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2007,

Case No. 06-10094 CIV MOORE)(citing Davis v. Cluet, Peabody & Co., 667 F.2d 1371,

1373 (11" Cir 1982).
Case 2:23-cv-00406 Document 1 Filed 06/07/23 Page 4 of 8 PagelD 4

15. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (c)(1), a corporation shall be deemed to be a

citizen of any state in which it has been incorporated and of the state where it has its

principal place of business.

16. At all material times, Amica Mutual was and is a foreign (surplus lines

insurance carrier) corporation, incorporated in Rhode Island, with is principal place of

business located at One Hundred Amica Mutual Way, Lincoln, RI 02865. See Exhibit “B”,

2023 Foreign Profit Corporation Annual Report filed with the Florida Division of

Corporations.

17. Amica Mutual, therefore, “resides” in Rhode Island, and for purposes of

diversity jurisdiction, Amica Mutual could only be considered a citizen of Rhode Island,

not Florida.

18. Plaintiffs are residents of Charlotte County, Florida, and are the owners of

the real property that is the subject of this lawsuit located at 7155 South Lake Drive,

Englewood, Florida 34224. (4, Complaint). According to the Charlotte County Property

Appraiser, plaintiffs receive a homestead tax exemption for this residence. Accordingly,

upon information and belief, plaintiffs’ permanent residence and place of domicile is in

Charlotte County, Florida.

19. Florida Statutes §196.012(17) defines permanent residence as “place

where a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home and principal

establishment to which, whenever absent, he or she has the intention of returning. A

person may have only one permanent residence at atime. . .”.

20. Although residency may not be equivalent of citizenship for diversity

purposes, state citizenship or domicile purposes of diversity jurisdiction is determined by

two factors: residence and intent to remain. See Jones v. Law Firm of Hill and Ponton,

4
Case 2:23-cv-00406 Document 1 Filed 06/07/23 Page 5 of 8 PagelD 5

141 F.Supp.2d 1349, 1355 (M.D. Fla. 2001)(citing Mississippi Bank of Choctaw Indians

v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48 (1989). There is a presumption that the state in which a

person resides at any given time is also that person’s domicile. Jones, 141 F. Supp. At

1355 (citing District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 455 (1941). Furthermore, once

an individual has established a domicile, he/she remains a citizen there until he/she

satisfies the mental and physical requirements of domicile in a new state. /d. at 1355

(citing Yeldell v. Tutt, 913 F.2d 533, 537 (8'" Cir. 1990).

21. It is anticipated that plaintiffs will identify Florida as their state of citizenship

in their mandatory disclosure statement pursuant to Rule 7.1, Fed. R. Civ. P.

B. Amount in Controversy

22. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest,

attorney’s fees and costs.

23. Plaintiffs alleged the residence sustained direct physical damage as a result

of Hurricane lan on September
28, 2022 (8, Complaint), and that Amica Mutual breached

the policy by failing to “provide the appropriate amount of coverage and properly pay the

full amount of insurance proceeds owed to Plaintiffs.” (14, Complaint)

24. Following its investigation of the claim, Amica Mutual notified the insureds

that it was affording coverage for the reported property damage and issued payments to

the insureds for $13,721.13 (Coverage B); $1,444.22 (Coverage B — depreciation); and

$23,898.24 (Coverage A). See Comp. Exhibit “C”.

25. In support of their claim, plaintiffs submitted a roofing contract/estimate for

$96,600.00. See Exhibit “D”. Plaintiffs also advised Amica Mutual that there was

potentially structural damage to the residence.
Case 2:23-cv-00406 Document 1 Filed 06/07/23 Page 6 of 8 PagelD 6

26. On November 30, 2022, plaintiffs served a statutory presuit notice of intent

to initiate litigation and included a settlement demand based on damages of $110,661.00,

exclusive of attorney's fees and costs.

27. Plaintiffs have failed to plead any specific amount of damages sought and

have simply stated that this is an action for damages in excess of $30,000 exclusive of

attorney fees, costs and interest”, without more. (4/1, Complaint)

28. When a plaintiff files a case in state court and fails to plead a specific

amount of damages, the removing defendant must only prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirements. Williams

v. Best Buy Co. Inc., 269 F.3d 1316 (11" Cir. 2001).

29. “(I)nformation relating to the amount in controversy...shall be treated as an

“other paper” under subsection (b)(3). 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (c)(3)(A).

30. Based upon the factual allegations of the complaint and plaintiffs’ proposed

repair estimate, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the jurisdictional

requirement of this court.

31. Pre-suit settlement demands or offers may be considered in establishing

that the jurisdictional threshold has been met. Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092,

1097 (11" Cir. 1994)(cited in Morock v. Chautauqua Airlines, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

43133 (M.D. Fla. Case No. 8:07-CV-00210-T17MAP) and Burnette v. Regions Bank,

2016 WL 1644182 (M.D. Fla. 2016, Case No. 5:15-CV-567-OC-32PRL); see also

Westerburger v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87974, (S.D. Fla.

Case No. 19-60870-ClVO(“Public adjuster estimates are routinely used to establish the

amount in controversy in removal cases of first party insurance claims where the amount

of damages is not specified in the complaint.”); Juan Diego Cardenas DDS, Inc. v. Colony

6
Case 2:23-cv-00406 Document 1 Filed 06/07/23 Page 7 of 8 PagelD 7

Specialty Ins. Co., 14-22957 Civ-Scola, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184620 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12,

2015); Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owen, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554, 190 L. Ed. 2d

495 (2014)(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a))(“[A] defendant's notice of removal need include[s]

only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional

threshold.”).

IV. Conclusion

32. Defendant, Amica Mutual Insurance Company, removes this case to the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

33. Promptly after filing this notice of removal, defendant will give written notice

to all adverse parties and will file a copy of this notice with the clerk of the state court,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

| HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 7, 2023, | electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic

filing to all counsel of record on the attached service list.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Amy L. Koltnow
Amy L. Koltnow, Esq.
Florida Bar No: 899010
akoltnow@colodnyfass.com
Colodny Fass
Counsel for Defendant
1401 NW 136th Avenue
Suite 200
Sunrise, FL 33323
Telephone: (954) 492-4010
Telefax: (954) 492-1144
SERVICE LIST:
ANTHONY M. DENNIS, ESQ.
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Case 2:23-cv-00406 Document 1 Filed 06/07/23 Page 8 of 8 PagelD 8

Dennis Kessler, PLLC
333 SE 2™ Avenue, Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33131
Email: adennis@dklawfl.com; jherrera@dklawfl.com; eservice@dklawfl.com
Filing # 17255644 E-FHTEY OSAS)/ 2025 H2IB:43 PMed 08/07/23. Page 1 of S PagelD 8

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR’ CHARLOTTE
COUNTY, FLORIDA

PAUL C. SWANTON AND DEBORAH A. CASE NO.:
SWANTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
TRUSTEES OF THE PAUL C. SWANTON
AND DEBORAH A. SWANTON REVOCABLE
TRUST DTD 04/27/06
>

Plaintiffs,
Vv.

AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND DEMAND
FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, PAUL C. SWANTON AND DEBORAH A. SWANTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE PAUL C. SWANTON AND DEBORAH A.
SWANTON REVOCABLE TRUST DTD 04/27/06, through the undersigned counsel, and

hereby files this Complaint against Defendant, AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
and as grounds therefore states as follows:
1 This is an action for damages in excess of THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS

($30,000.00), exclusive of interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and is otherwise within the

jurisdictional limits of this Court.

2. At all times material hereto, Defendant was an insurance company authorized to

do business in the State of Florida and doing business and maintaining offices and/or agents for

the transaction of its customary business in Charlotte County, Florida.

3 At all times material hereto, the damaged property is located in Charlotte

County, Florida.
Case 2:23-cv-00406 Document 1-1 Filed 06/07/23 Page 2 of 5 PagelD 10

4 Prior to September 28, 2022, Plaintiffs sought and purchased homeowner’s

insurance from Defendant to cover their property located at 7155 South Lake Drive,

Englewood, Florida 34224 (hereinafter “property and/or Insured Property”).

5 The subject policy of insurance, which is believed to be policy number

63020920NL was issued by Defendant to Plaintiffs to provide property insurance coverage for

the Insured Property.

6 Plaintiffs have paid the premiums for the Contract prior to September 28, 2022.

7. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs and Defendant had a policy of insurance,

Policy No. 63020920NL, (hereinafter “Contract”). Plaintiffs are not in possession of a complete

certified copy of the Contract; however, the Contract is well known to and in the possession of

Defendant, and Plaintiffs have requested a formal copy of the Contract through a Request to

Produce which has been served upon Defendant contemporaneously with this Complaint. See

Equity Premium, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 956 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4!" DCA 2007); Amiker

v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 398 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Parkway General Hospital Inc. v.

Allstate Ins. Co., 393 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3 DCA 1981).

8 The Insured Property sustained direct physical damage as a result of a

windstorm from hurricane Ian on or about September 28, 2022.

9 The policy described in paragraph 7 above was in full force and effect as of

September 28, 2022.

10. Defendant received timely notice of the loss.

lL. Defendant assigned the loss reported by Plaintiffs and described in paragraph 8

above a claim number believed to be 60004440946.
Case 2:23-cv-00406 Document 1-1 Filed 06/07/23 Page 3 of 5 PagelD 11

12. Defendant and its agents requested and were given access and the opportunity to

inspect the Insured Property and the reported damage arising from the loss described in

paragraph 8 above.

13. Prior to this action, the Defendant denied coverage and/or failed to issue full

payment for the loss described in paragraph 8 above pursuant to the terms and coverages

available under the Contract.

14. This is an action relating to Defendant’s breach of Contract for its failure to

provide the appropriate amount of coverage and properly pay the full amount of insurance

proceeds owed to Plaintiffs.

15. Jurisdiction and venue of this matter are proper in the Circuit Court for Charlotte

County, Florida.

COUNT I- BREACH OF CONTRACT

16. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate paragraphs 1-15 as if fully stated herein, and

further allege as follows:

17. During the above Contract period the Insured Property sustained direct physical

damages to the property, including but not limited to the roof, exterior, and interior of the

dwelling.

18. Plaintiffs provided timely notice of the loss, described in paragraph 8, above to

the Defendant.

19. Prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, Defendant has denied coverage under the

Contract for the damages referenced herein and/or has refused or otherwise failed to issue full

payment to Plaintiffs for the physical damages to the Insured Property sustained during the

Contract period.
Case 2:23-cv-00406 Document 1-1 Filed 06/07/23 Page 4 of 5 PagelD 12

20. The Defendant has wrongfully determined the damages to the Insured Property

are excluded under the Contract and/or represented that the damages are less than the damages

actually sustained as a result of the loss.

21. The Plaintiffs have provided notice, complied with all obligations, and conditions

precedent to this lawsuit, and as required by Florida Statute, including F.S. § 627.70152,! which

would entitle Plaintiffs to recover under the Contract or such conditions/obligations have been

waived.

22. The Plaintiffs have complied with all policy obligations and conditions precedent

to this lawsuit which would entitle the Plaintiffs to recover benefits under the Contract, or such

conditions/obligations have been waived.

23. Defendant has failed to provide complete coverage and/or issue full payment for

the physical damages that occurred as a result of the loss during the Contract period.

24. This failure is contrary to the terms of the Contract and constitutes a breach of the

Contract.

25. The Plaintiffs have been damaged by this breach in the form of unpaid insurance

proceeds needed to restore the Insured Property to its pre-loss condition as a result of Defendant

refusing to provide complete coverage and pay the full amount owed under the Contract.

26. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of Contract, Plaintiffs

have been required to retain the services of the undersigned attorneys to represent and protect the

interests of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs have become obligated to pay them a reasonable fee for their

services in bringing this action.

' Despite compliance with F.S. § 627.70152, Plaintiffs do not concede nor contend such statute applies retroactively
to policies that incepted or renewed prior to July 1, 2021 — ie., the date F.S. § 627.70152 was enacted. See
Menendez v. Progressive Express Inc. Co., 35 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 2010).
Case 2:23-cv-00406 Document 1-1 Filed 06/07/23 Page 5 of 5 PagelD 13

27. In the event that Plaintiffs prevail in this action, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award

of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section §627.428, §626.9373, §627.70152 and §57.041,

of Florida Statutes and/or any other Florida Law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant for damages, including

but not limited to damages owed under the Contract, statutory interest, and attorneys’ fees and

costs.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs further demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable as a matter of right.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a certified copy of the foregoing has been served on
Defendant.

/s/Anthony M. Dennis
ANTHONY M. DENNIS, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 123526
DENNIS KESSLER, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000,
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (813) 607-5111
Fax: (813) 522-6157
Primary: adennis@dklawfl.com
Secondary: jherrera@dklawfl.com
e-service email address: eservice@dklawfl.com
Case 2:23-cy. 00406, Recuments-2. Gileg06(n7'23 Page 1 of 1 PagelD 14
Str INSURANCE COMPANY
Me
yi
\ fii Schedute trent [Print Summary |../Detallsine/
11060 gest THebFFQoyEWasiep 7S)
C) Farmnay (preay ei ncaa tt SOD ges SLE eye Pt FCC)
fo. i 1. Ng & SUMMARY
Jette: Couet ype: Case Fee:
howGER Dp EATOD NTL, GEOFFREY H OneUE CML Contacts
(Case Narnbee (eileenCarte Meserdee: Sae
2OONOCA, ORROEC AON FPPC OPEN
& Ustmare Pose Chek File Bate: ‘ates Bate Watow Spay Feta
5503 5/5 083
Login
arenaBoe Catedy Loci: = Agency:
dl NOTIN CUSTODY
(prey Repertmamnber:
((Bencheavk! Heme-aspoc! About)

Starch (/ Benchmark!
Home. apie Search)
Renchmark tDeckat
(PR court echat | Cour api PARTIES
(5 caeoar WE
——— PAT a
(Benchmart (CounDecet aspx/ Calendar) OHI, anCTISC DOR
(Uflenchrrarte
Par Sy gn free 1a
Q) Recent Senches coe t SN pe ah ORT ICES TL
ATTORNEY WOLTROW, AA Y'L (JRerechrearh
Par ty aap i ineice! 1A?
cme! TSA gen RV cagA) JOR
oo DEMOS, ANTHONY MOORE (1 enechenarte Party sag! AC
SAIC TOR PALL sfhenchenark Party aapzel neds! TS
PAnTIT coe SM ar wy Tr kage ooh TEETH vee ALE) iy
com SN ge RP YOR NA
detorrey)
PANT ‘HRECTOR DERORAN (/Mereherarks Party aagm.nebes/1 AIS
‘Chet St gen OR IWS Trt 2c |
(AOA RAFT. SURI COMPU
ourevoanr (UflenecherantParty x treden! 1UTPSA Ac ROLTIOOW, ABE Liha referer Party pnd ec TATRA
Coe 1 SAM ar oy True ORV PR SP gaa |
com 1 SN pn bn FRE TALE A
CENTILE, GEOPPREY M ¢/Benchrrark Party: sap

Plaintiffs,
Vv.

AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND DEMAND
FOR JURY TRIAL

hereby files this Complaint against Defendant, AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
and as grounds therefore states as follows:
1 This is an action for damages in excess of THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS

($30,000.00), exclusive of interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and is otherwise within the

jurisdictional limits of this Court.

2. At all times material hereto, Defendant was an insurance company authorized to

do business in the State of Florida and doing business and maintaining offices and/or agents for

the transaction of its customary business in Charlotte County, Florida.

3 At all times material hereto, the damaged property is located in Charlotte

County, Florida.
Case 2:23-cv-00406 Document 1-3 Filed 06/07/23 Page 3 of 16 PagelD 17