UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

KEY WEST DIVISION 

SALTPONDS CONDOMINIUM 

ASSOCIATION, INC., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

ET AL., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

4:20-cv-10063-JEM 

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S 

RESPONSE TO SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY’S NOTICE OF 

JOINDER IN LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (hereinafter “Scottsdale”), by and 

through its undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 and this Court’s 

Order in Cases with Multiple Defendants [Doc 56], files this Reply to Plaintiff’s 

Response and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant 

Scottsdale Insurance Company’s Notice of Joinder in Liberty Surplus Insurance 

Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc 133], respectfully showing the Court as 

follows: 

Case 4:20-cv-10063-JEM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2021 Page 1 of 10
2 

INTRODUCTION 

On May 4, 2021, Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation ("Liberty") filed its 

motion to dismiss the amended complaint [Doc 50]. On May 6, 2021, the Court 

entered its Order in cases with multiple defendants [Doc 56], which requires, 

among other things, that the defendants file their responses and motions relating to 

the amended complaint jointly. Accordingly, Scottsdale filed a Notice of Joinder in 

Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (hereinafter “Notice of 

Joinder”) on June 10, 2021, attaching as an exhibit a true and correct copy of the 

policy issued by Scottsdale, number AJS0000461, (hereinafter “Scottsdale policy”) 

as evidence of Scottsdale’s participation in the insurance program. [Doc 113].1 

The Court’s May 6, 2021 order also requires Saltponds to file a proof of 

service, as to each defendant, within seven days of perfecting service on each 

defendant. [Doc 56]. On June 14, 2021, Saltponds filed a Notice of Service of 

Process indicating that Scottsdale Insurance Company had been served on April 

27, 2021, forty-eight days prior. [Doc 119]. 

1 As stated in Scottsdale’s Notice of Joinder, the insurer defendants named in this action, 

including Scottsdale, participate in an insurance program under which a primary insurance policy 

issued by Rockhill Insurance Company, number EB3R16-10008, and various excess insurance 

policies were issued.

Case 4:20-cv-10063-JEM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2021 Page 2 of 10
3 

On June 22, 2021, Saltponds filed a Response and Incorporated 

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company’s 

Notice of Joinder in Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss. 

[Doc 133]. Contrary to Saltponds’ assertions, the Scottsdale policy should be 

considered by the Court because it is central to Saltponds’ claim and indisputably 

authentic. Further, the Scottsdale policy, as well as the primary insurance policy 

issued by Rockhill, number EB3R16-10008, (hereinafter “Rockhill policy”), 

unequivocally show that Scottsdale does not provide primary coverage to 

Saltponds. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts all of the 

complaint’s allegations as true, construing them in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff. See Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F. 3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008). The 

Court also shall consider “the facts derived from a complaint’s exhibits as part of 

the plaintiff's basic factual averments.” See F.T.C. v. AbbVie Prods. LLC, 713 F. 

3d 54, 63 (11th Cir. 2013). While the district court is generally prohibited from 

considering materials not attached to the complaint, an exception is made for 

documents that are both central to the plaintiff’s claim and undisputed as to 

authenticity. See Day v. Taylor, 400 F. 3d 1272, 1275-76 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Case 4:20-cv-10063-JEM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2021 Page 3 of 10
4 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

Saltponds’ assertion of untimeliness is immaterial, as Saltponds has not 

sought an entry of default against Scottsdale in this matter. Further, Saltponds did 

not file a notice of service of process as to Scottsdale until June 14, 2021, fortyeight days after Scottsdale was served. [Doc 119]. Under the Court’s order in 

cases with multiple defendants [Doc 56], Saltponds was required to file a proof of 

service, as to each defendant, within seven days of perfecting service on each 

defendant. (emphasis supplied). Saltponds incredibly now insists on rigid 

timeliness when it blatantly failed to comply with the Court’s order in cases with 

multiple defendants by filing the notice of service of process as to Scottsdale fortyone days late and twenty-seven days after it expected Scottsdale to serve its Notice 

of Joinder. This “defense” is nothing more than a feeble attempt to divert the 

Court’s attention from the actual issues set forth in Scottsdale’s Notice of Joinder. 

Additionally, contrary to Saltponds’ assertion, the Court may properly 

consider the Scottsdale policy attached as an exhibit to Scottsdale’s Notice of 

Joinder. While courts generally are prohibited from considering materials outside 

the four corners of the complaint in a motion to dismiss, there is an exception for 

Case 4:20-cv-10063-JEM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2021 Page 4 of 10
5 

documents that are (1) central to the plaintiff’s claim and (2) undisputed as to 

authenticity. See Day v. Taylor, 400 F. 3d 1272, 1275-76 (11th Cir. 2005). The 

Scottsdale policy certainly is central to Saltponds’ claim, as it evidences 

Scottsdale’s participation in the insurance program under which Saltponds seeks 

recovery. To the extent that any recovery is available to Saltponds from Scottsdale, 

it is governed by the Scottsdale policy attached as an exhibit to the Notice of 

Joinder. 

While Saltponds does not attempt to argue that the Scottsdale policy is not 

central to its claim, it does state that the Scottsdale policy is not indisputably 

authentic, asserting that “there is no mention of Saltponds or the [Rockhill] policy 

at issue in this case....” [Doc 133]. Saltponds’ argument is irrelevant. “In this 

context, ‘undisputed’ means that the authenticity of the document is not 

challenged.” Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2005). Scottsdale 

attached a true and correct copy of the Scottsdale policy to its Notice of Joinder, 

and Saltponds has made no allegation that the document has been improperly 

modified or altered or otherwise is inauthentic. Further, the Rockhill policy, 

attached by Saltponds to its amended complaint as an exhibit, contains a document 

entitled Appendix – Market Security (hereinafter “Market Appendix”), which “sets 

forth the participating insurers to the coverage provided.” [Doc 41-1, page 53 of 

Case 4:20-cv-10063-JEM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2021 Page 5 of 10
6 

55]. Not only is Rockhill clearly identified as the primary insurer in the Market 

Appendix, but “Scottsdale Insurance Company” also is listed as providing excess 

coverage under policy number AJS0000461, the same policy attached as an exhibit 

to Scottsdale’s Notice of Joinder. Therefore, the requirements for exception to the 

general rule have been satisfied, and the Scottsdale policy should be considered by 

the Court when addressing the motion. 

As evidenced by both the Rockhill policy and the Scottsdale policy, 

Scottsdale does not provide primary coverage to Saltponds under this insurance 

program. In fact, Scottsdale’s participation in the insurance program is limited to 

providing coverage under policy number AJS0000461, with coverage limits of 

$37.5 million part of $150 million in excess of $100 million and $62.5 million part 

of $250 million in excess of $250 million. Because Saltponds has failed to plead 

damages implicating Scottsdale’s $100 million coverage attachment point, and 

further failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim against Scottsdale upon 

which relief can be granted, Scottsdale should be dismissed from this action. 

WHEREFORE, defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company hereby 

respectfully requests that the amended complaint against Scottsdale be dismissed 

with prejudice and that all costs and disbursements incurred by Scottsdale in this 

action be taxed against Saltponds. 

Case 4:20-cv-10063-JEM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2021 Page 6 of 10
7 

Respectfully submitted this 12th day of July, 2021. 

/s/ Kristen K. Johnson 

Kristen K. Johnson, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 89096 

MOZLEY, FINLAYSON & LOGGINS 

LLP 

4767 New Broad Street 

Orlando, Florida 32814 

Tel: (404) 256-0700 

Fax: (404) 250-9355 

kjohnson@mfllaw.com

Counsel for Defendant Scottsdale 

Insurance Company 

Case 4:20-cv-10063-JEM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2021 Page 7 of 10
8 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

KEY WEST DIVISION 

SALTPONDS CONDOMINIUM 

ASSOCIATION, INC., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

ET AL., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

4:20-cv-10063-JEM 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing SCOTTSDALE 

INSURANCE COMPANY’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO 

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY’S NOTICE OF JOINDER IN 

LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS using the Court’s CM/ECF System, which will automatically send a 

copy of same to the following counsel of record: 

Joseph W. Janssen, III, Esq.

John M. Siracusa, Esq. 

JANSSEN, SIRACUSA & KEEGAN, 

PLLC 

19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618 

Miami, FL 33130 

jjanssen@jasilaw.com 

Antonio D. Morin, Esq. 

AKERMAN LLP 

Three Brickell City Centre 

98 SE 7th St Ste 1100 

Miami, FL 33131-3525 

antonio.morin@akerman.com

Counsel for Hallmark Specialty 

Case 4:20-cv-10063-JEM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2021 Page 8 of 10
9 

jsiracusa@jasilaw.com

kmaska@jasilaw.com

mkeegan@jasilaw.com

 

Counsel for Plaintiff Saltponds 

Condominium Association, Inc

Insurance Company 

Matthew L. Litsky, Esq.

PHELPS DUNBAR LLP 

100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 2000 

Tampa, Florida 33602-5311 

matthew.litsky@phelps.com 

Counsel for Defendant Certain 

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London 

Subscribing to Policy No.

B1230AP04438A16 

Christine M. Renella, Esq. 

ZELLE LLP 

SunTrust International Center 

One Southeast Third Avenue, Ste. 1600 

Miami, Florida 33131-4332 

crenella@zelle.com 

Counsel for Defendant Liberty Surplus 

Insurance Corporation 

Robert M. Darroch, Esq. 

Sara K. Blackwell, Esq. 

GOODMAN McGUFFEY LLP 

6751 Professional Parkway 

Suite 103 

Sarasota, Florida 34240-8449 

rdarroch@GM-LLP.com

dlane@GM-LLP.com

sblackwell@GM-LLP.com

FLService@GM-LLP.com 

Counsel for Defendant Colony Insurance 

Company 

Perry R. Goodman, Esq. 

MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & 

GREENGRASS 

110 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 610 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

pgoodman@moundcotton.com 

Counsel for Defendant Mitsui Sumitomo 

Insurance Company of America 

Melissa McMillan Sims, Esq. 

Judith Goldstein, Esq. 

BERK, MERCHANT & SIMS, PLC 

2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 700 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Msims@berklawfirm.com

Jgoldstein@berklawfirm.com

Michele Lo Presti-Wouters, Esq. 

CHARTWELL LAW 

One Battery Park Plaza, Suite 710 

New York, NY 10004 

mloprestiwouters@chartwelllaw.com 

Case 4:20-cv-10063-JEM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2021 Page 9 of 10
10 

Counsel for Defendant Lexington 

Insurance Company 

Counsel for Defendant Certain 

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London 

Subscribing to Policy No. 

93PRX16EDCB incorrectly named herein 

as “Lloyd’s of London”

Jason M. Chodos, Esq.

LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP 

600 Corporate Drive, Suite 600 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 

Chodos@litchfieldcavo.com

Counsel for Defendant United National 

Insurance Company 

Christopher M. Ramey, Esq. 

Justin W. Sblano, Esq. 

BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ 

CRAIG LLP 

400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 2300 

Tampa, FL 33602 

Cramey@butler.legal

jsblano@butler.legal 

Counsel for Defendant First Specialty 

Insurance Corporation

Michael J. Rivero, Esq.

ZINOBER DIANA & MONTEVERDE, 

P.A. 

150 Second Avenue North, Suite 1170 

St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

MRivero@zinoberdiana.com 

MScott@zinoberdiana.com 

Justine@zinoberdiana.com 

Counsel for Defendant Evanston 

Insurance Company

This 12th day of July, 2021. 

/s/ Kristen K. Johnson 

KRISTEN K. JOHNSON 

Florida Bar No. 89096 

Case 4:20-cv-10063-JEM Document 139 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/12/2021 Page 10 of 10