On December 21, 2015 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Safe Touch Auto Glass Inc,
and
Permanent General Assurance Corporation,
for SMALL CLAIMS 3 - $501 - $2,500
in the District Court of Pinellas County.
Preview
Case Number: 15-010917-SC
Filing # 35791791 E-Filed 12/21/2015 04:40:04 PM
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE,
6™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
SMALL CLAIMS
SAFE TOUCH AUTO GLASS INC )
a/alo DONNISHA COUSINS ;
Plaintiff, ) CASE NO:
vs. DIVISION:
PERMANENT GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION ;
Defendant, }
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
TO DEFENDANT PERMANENT GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION
PURSUANT TO Rule 1.370, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendant,
PERMANENT GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, (“Defendant”), is hereby requested to admit
the truth of these matters hereinafter set forth on or by the forty-fifth (45th) day after service
hereof, answering in writing.
1. Atall times material hereto, Defendant was a corporation duly licensed to transact
insurance business in the State of Florida and engaged in the business of automobile insurance.
2. Defendant maintained agents in PINELLAS County, Florida for the transaction of its
customary business in PINELLAS County, Florida.
3. The Defendant’s name as it appears in the Complaint is accurate.
4. Venue lies in PINELLAS County, Florida for this action.
5. The above-styled Court, in and for PINELLAS County, Florida has jurisdiction over the
claim of the Plaintiff against the Defendant.
6. The Plaintiff has standing to bring this lawsuit.
Page | of 4
***ELECTRONICALLY FILED 12/21/2015 04:40:14 PM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY***7. The Defendant issued an automobile insurance policy which provides comprehensive
and/or collision benefits for the repair and/or replacement of the vehicle referenced in the
complaint.
8. The above-described automobile policy issued by the Defendant was in full force and
effect on the date of the subject loss.
9. Defendant has no report and/or appraisal with regard to any repairs for which benefits are
sought by Plaintiff specifically stating that the repairs were “not reasonable.”
10. Defendant has no report and/or appraisals with regard to any repairs for which benefits
are sought by Plaintiff specifically stating that the repairs were not “exorbitant”.
11. Defendant has not provided Plaintiff with any reports and/or appraisals stating that the
repairs for which the Plaintiff seeks compensation and/or collision benefits were not
“reasonable”, “not related” or “exorbitant”.
12. Defendant never requested or sought an appraisal for the damages at issue in this matter.
13. Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff's comprehensive and/or collision claim without
“reasonable proof to establish” that Defendant was not responsible for the payment.
14. Comprehensive and/or collision benefits are due payable as loss the accrues, upon receipt
of reasonable proof of such loss and the amount of expenses and loss incurred which are covered
under the policy.
15. Insured’s policy with Defendant is to provide insurance for payment of benefits described
as the repair and/or replacement of its insured’s automobile glass damage.
16. Under the terms of the subject policy with Defendant, all comprehensive and/or collision
benefits are overdue if not paid within (30) days after Defendant is furnished with written notice
Page 2 of 4of the fact of a covered loss and the amount of the same unless Defendant has reasonable proof
to establish it is not responsible for the payment.
17. Under the insured’s policy with Defendant, all overdue comprehensive and/or collision
benefits must bear simple interest at the rate set by the Comptroller for the year in which
payment is due.
18. It is the Defendant’s normal business practice not to request an appraisal for a broken or
damaged windshield.
19. Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with an explanation as to why the invoice
submitted by the Defendant was not paid or was not paid in full.
20. Under the Insured’s policy with Defendant, the provisions of Florida Statute § 627.428,
apply to any dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant concerning the coverage at issue in this
matter.
21. A multiplier of the Lode Star for Attorney’s Fees is appropriate if Plaintiff herein has a
contingency fee contract with the undersigned firm.
22. Defendant was furnished with written notice of the fact of a covered loss with regard to
the portions of the Plaintiffs comprehensive and/or collision claim which are subject of the
dispute herein.
23. There is not a standard or proper method for determining the reasonable cost of the
replacement of a windshield and/or glass repair for an automobile.
Page 3 of 4CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served along
with the Complaint.
Dated: 12/21/2015 /s/ Lee H. Davis
Lee H. Davis, Esquire
LEE DAVIS LAW, P.A.
2451 McMullen Booth Rd., Ste. 301A
Clearwater, FL 33759
Phone: 727-478-4801
Fax: 727-290-3798
Service Email: lecl [davislaw@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Florida Bar No: 21579
Page 4 of 4
Document Filed Date
December 21, 2015
Case Filing Date
December 21, 2015
Category
SMALL CLAIMS 3 - $501 - $2,500
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.