1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN ADMIRALTY

GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 

vs.

IVORY LADY LLC,

Defendants.

 /

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE, by and through its 

undersigned attorneys, and for its Complaint seeking this Court’s Declaratory Judgment as to the 

coverage afforded under a policy of marine insurance, and further thereto would respectfully state 

as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for declaratory relief pursuant to Title 28 of the United States 

Code, § 2201 et seq, in that a present controversy exists between the parties hereto in which the 

Plaintiff asks this Court to adjudicate and determine the rights of the parties to a contract of marine 

insurance which is in dispute.

2. Venue lies within the Northern District of Florida as this cause arises out of a policy 

of marine insurance delivered by Plaintiff to the Assured’s residence, located at 4710 North W 

Street in Pensacola, Florida 32505, and because the policy contains a valid and enforceable forum 

selection clause establishing jurisdiction where the Assured resides. 

Case 3:20-cv-05680-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 14
2

3. This is an admiralty and maritime cause within the meaning of Rule 9(h) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28 of the United 

States Code, sec. 1333.

4. Plaintiff, GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE, (hereinafter “GREAT LAKES”) is a 

corporation organized and existing under the laws of Germany, with its office and principal place 

of business located in Munich, Germany. 

5. Upon information and belief, the IVORY LADY LLC, is a corporation organized 

and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of business located in 

Pensacola, Florida.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. On or about November 1, 2019, Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff, via 

Defendant’s agent, an application for a policy of marine insurance. Such a submission was a 

routine aspect of the Plaintiff’s procedure for considering whether to agree to provide insurance 

coverage.

7. A true and correct copy of the said application (including the application form itself, 

an application for operator Thomas Gardi, a Hurricane Questionnaire/Plan, and the first Letter of 

Survey Recommendations Compliance), completed and signed by Defendant and submitted to 

Plaintiff on or about November 1, 2019 by and on behalf of the Defendant by its agent is attached 

hereto as Exhibit 1.

8. Plaintiff agreed to issue its Policy No. CSRYP/178847 based upon the 

representations set forth in, and the material information disclosed in, the application documents 

attached hereto at Ex. 1. 

Case 3:20-cv-05680-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 14
3

9. The original Letter of Survey Recommendations Compliance (hereinafter “original 

LOC”) states that all pre-insurance survey recommendations had either already been completed or 

would be completed “during refit” of the Vessel, which would be performed between December 

2019 and April 2020. See ex. 1, at 8. 

10. On or about November 5, 2019, Plaintiff GREAT LAKES, in exchange for good 

and valuable consideration issued to the Defendant named herein its Marine Insurance Policy No. 

CSRYP/178847, affording Hull & Machinery coverage in the amount of $920,000.00 for a period 

of one (1) year on the 1988 103 ft Cheoy Lee vessel named “IVORY LADY” (hereinafter “the 

Vessel) which was owned by the said Defendant.

11. A true and correct copy of the Policy Schedule and the policy language for 

Plaintiff’s Policy No. CSRYP/178847, and all endorsements thereto (hereinafter “the Policy”), is 

attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

12. On or about September 26, 2019, Defendant, via its agent Morgan Wells of Jack 

Martin & Associates, advised Underwriters via e-mail that the Vessel was scheduled to undergo a 

refit at American Custom Yachts in Stuart, Florida, where it would remain for approximately four 

to five months while the refit was completed. A true and correct copy of the aforementioned 

September 26, 2019 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 

13. On or about November 4, 2019, Defendant, via its agent Mr. Wells, advised 

Underwriters via e-mail that that Vessel would be taken from Palm Beach, Florida to Stuart, 

Florida for the scheduled refit on November 14, 2019. A true and correct copy of the 

aforementioned November 4, 2019 e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 

14. The Policy includes the following warranty:

Case 3:20-cv-05680-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 3 of 14
4

Additional Warranties, Terms, and Conditions:

[....]

Permission is granted for the Scheduled Vessel to make one trip from Palm Beach, 

FL to Stuart, FL thereafter no navigation is permitted until all surveyors 

recommendations are complied with and an updated letter of survey 

recommendations compliance is seen and approved by underwriters.

15. Plaintiff included the above “one-trip” warranty in the Policy to ensure that the 

Vessel did not engage in any further navigation until all pre-insurance survey recommendations 

had been completed. 

16. On or around June 30, 2020, during the period of Plaintiff’s Policy No. 

CSRYP/178847, the Vessel which was owned by the said Defendant was involved in an incident 

in which it has been alleged that certain damage was sustained by the vessel as a result of a collision 

with a reef while it was being navigated to Pensacola, Florida. 

17. Upon receipt of the first notice of the June 30, 2020 loss described herein, Plaintiff 

caused an investigation to be made into the facts and circumstances surrounding the said incident.

18. As part of its investigation into the June 30, 2020 loss described herein, Plaintiff 

requested an updated Letter of Survey Recommendations Compliance, as required by the above 

“one-trip” warranty. 

19. On or about July 2, 2020, Defendant, via its agent, provided two updated Letters of 

Survey Recommendations Compliance (hereinafter “updated LOC’s”), both signed and dated July 

2, 2020, which state that all pre-insurance survey recommendations had been completed. A true 

and correct copy of the two updated LOC’s, dated July 2, 2020, are attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 

20. The said investigation established that the fire extinguishers aboard the Vessel had 

not been properly serviced, as recommended by the pre-insurance survey. 

Case 3:20-cv-05680-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 4 of 14
5

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of the “One-Trip” Warranty)

21. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 6 

through 20 as if set forth fully herein.

22. The Policy states in pertinent part:

Additional Warranties, Terms, and Conditions:

[....]

Permission is granted for the Scheduled Vessel to make one trip from Palm Beach, 

FL to Stuart, FL thereafter no navigation is permitted until all surveyors 

recommendations are complied with and an updated letter of survey 

recommendations compliance is seen and approved by underwriters.

23. The post-incident investigation carried out by the Plaintiff established that the 

Defendant failed to comply with the “one-trip” warranty in that the Vessel was being navigated to 

Pensacola, Florida on the date of the loss before all of the pre-insurance survey recommendations 

had been complied with and before an updated LOC had been seen and approved by Underwriters. 

24. Defendant was therefore in direct violation of the said express warranty set forth in 

Plaintiff’s policy of marine insurance. 

25. Defendant’s breach of the warranty set forth in the Plaintiff’s policy of marine 

insurance permits the Plaintiff to avoid liability for the costs of repairing or replacing the Vessel 

as a result of the incident on June 30, 2020. 

26. Notwithstanding the said breach of an express warranty and the lack of any 

coverage under the Plaintiff’s policy of marine insurance, Defendant IVORY LADY LLC has 

made demand upon Plaintiff for payment of an amount equal to the full amount necessary to effect 

repairs to, or to replace, the Vessel insured under the said terms of the said policy of marine 

insurance.

Case 3:20-cv-05680-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 5 of 14
6

27. As a result of the breach of an express warranty and the aforesaid lack of coverage 

under the terms of the policy attached hereto, Plaintiff has sustained actual prejudice and seeks 

this Court’s Declaratory Judgment regarding the coverage afforded under the terms of Policy No. 

CSRYP/178847. Until such time as the Plaintiff is able to have its rights and responsibilities under 

the marine insurance policy construed by this Court, Plaintiff will suffer uncertainty with respect 

to its responsibilities and obligations under the terms of the said policy.

28. As a result of the Defendant’s demands for payment under the terms of the policy 

of marine insurance attached hereto, and as a result of the lack of any coverage for the loss under 

the facts and circumstances described herein, a real and justiciable issue exists with respect to the 

existence of valuable rights under the terms of the policies of marine insurance, and a bona fide, 

actual and present dispute exists calling for this Court’s Declaratory Judgment.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of the Survey Compliance Warranty)

29. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 6 

through 20 as if set forth fully herein.

30. Plaintiff’s policy states in pertinent part:

9. General Conditions & Warranties:

[....]

r. [....] If the survey makes any recommendations with respect to the Scheduled 

Vessel, then it is warranted that all such recommendations are completed prior to 

any loss giving rise to any claim hereunder, by skilled workmen using fit and proper 

materials.... 

31. The post-incident investigation carried out by the Plaintiff established that the 

Defendant failed to comply with the survey compliance warranty in that the Vessel’s fire 

Case 3:20-cv-05680-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 6 of 14
7

extinguishers had not been properly serviced at the time of the loss, as recommended by the preinsurance survey. 

32. Defendant was therefore in direct violation of the said express warranty set forth in 

Plaintiff’s policy of marine insurance.

33. Defendant’s breach of the warranty set forth in the Plaintiff’s policy of marine 

insurance permits the Plaintiff to avoid liability for the costs of repairing or replacing the Vessel 

as a result of the incident on June 30, 2020. 

34. Notwithstanding the said breach of an express warranty and the lack of any 

coverage under the Plaintiff’s policy of marine insurance, Defendant IVORY LADY LLC has 

made demand upon Plaintiff for payment of an amount equal to the full amount necessary to effect 

repairs to, or to replace, the Vessel insured under the said terms of the said policy of marine 

insurance.

35. As a result of the breach of an express warranty and the aforesaid lack of coverage 

under the terms of the policy attached hereto, Plaintiff has sustained actual prejudice and seeks 

this Court’s Declaratory Judgment regarding the coverage afforded under the terms of Policy No. 

CSRYP/178847. Until such time as the Plaintiff is able to have its rights and responsibilities under 

the marine insurance policy construed by this Court, Plaintiff will suffer uncertainty with respect 

to its responsibilities and obligations under the terms of the said policy.

36. As a result of the Defendant’s demands for payment under the terms of the policy 

of marine insurance attached hereto, and as a result of the lack of any coverage for the loss under 

the facts and circumstances described herein, a real and justiciable issue exists with respect to the 

Case 3:20-cv-05680-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 7 of 14
8

existence of valuable rights under the terms of the policies of marine insurance, and a bona fide, 

actual and present dispute exists calling for this Court’s Declaratory Judgment.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of the Fire Extinguisher Warranty)

37. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 6 

through 20 as if set forth fully herein.

38. Plaintiff’s policy states in pertinent part:

9. General Conditions & Warranties:

[....]

k. If the Scheduled Vessel is fitted with fire extinguishing equipment, then it is 

warranted that such equipment is properly installed and is maintained in good 

working order. This includes the weighing of tanks once a year, 

certification/tagging and recharging as necessary.

39. The post-incident investigation carried out by the Plaintiff established that the 

Defendant failed to comply with the above fire extinguisher warranty in that the fire extinguishers 

aboard the Vessel had not been properly installed and maintained in good working order. 

40. Defendant was therefore in direct violation of the said express warranty set forth in 

Plaintiff’s policy of marine insurance.

41. Defendant’s breach of the warranty set forth in the Plaintiff’s policy of marine 

insurance permits the Plaintiff to avoid liability for the costs of repairing or replacing the Vessel 

as a result of the incident on June 30, 2020. 

42. Notwithstanding the said breach of an express warranty and the lack of any 

coverage under the Plaintiff’s policy of marine insurance, Defendant IVORY LADY LLC has 

made demand upon Plaintiff for payment of an amount equal to the full amount necessary to effect 

Case 3:20-cv-05680-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 8 of 14
9

repairs to, or to replace, the Vessel insured under the said terms of the said policy of marine 

insurance.

43. As a result of the breach of an express warranty and the aforesaid lack of coverage 

under the terms of the policy attached hereto, Plaintiff has sustained actual prejudice and seeks 

this Court’s Declaratory Judgment regarding the coverage afforded under the terms of Policy No. 

CSRYP/178847. Until such time as the Plaintiff is able to have its rights and responsibilities under 

the marine insurance policy construed by this Court, Plaintiff will suffer uncertainty with respect 

to its responsibilities and obligations under the terms of the said policy.

44. As a result of the Defendant’s demands for payment under the terms of the policy 

of marine insurance attached hereto, and as a result of the lack of any coverage for the loss under 

the facts and circumstances described herein, a real and justiciable issue exists with respect to the 

existence of valuable rights under the terms of the policies of marine insurance, and a bona fide, 

actual and present dispute exists calling for this Court’s Declaratory Judgment.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of the Seaworthiness Warranty)

45. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 6 

through 20 as if set forth fully herein.

46. Plaintiff’s policy states in pertinent part:

9. General Conditions & Warranties:

[....]

b. It is warranted that the Scheduled Vessel is seaworthy at all times during the 

duration of this insuring agreement. Breach of this warranty will void this insuring 

agreement from its inception.

Case 3:20-cv-05680-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 9 of 14
10

47. The post-incident investigation carried out by the Plaintiff established that the 

Defendant failed to comply with the above seaworthiness warranty in that the fire extinguishers 

aboard the Vessel had not been properly installed and maintained in good working order, making 

the Vessel unsafe to operate. 

48. Defendant was therefore in direct violation of the said express warranty set forth in 

Plaintiff’s policy of marine insurance.

49. Defendant’s breach of the warranty set forth in the Plaintiff’s policy of marine 

insurance permits the Plaintiff to avoid liability for the costs of repairing or replacing the Vessel 

as a result of the incident on June 30, 2020. 

50. Notwithstanding the said breach of an express warranty and the lack of any 

coverage under the Plaintiff’s policy of marine insurance, Defendant IVORY LADY LLC has 

made demand upon Plaintiff for payment of an amount equal to the full amount necessary to effect 

repairs to, or to replace, the Vessel insured under the said terms of the said policy of marine 

insurance.

51. As a result of the breach of an express warranty and the aforesaid lack of coverage 

under the terms of the policy attached hereto, Plaintiff has sustained actual prejudice and seeks 

this Court’s Declaratory Judgment regarding the coverage afforded under the terms of Policy No. 

CSRYP/178847. Until such time as the Plaintiff is able to have its rights and responsibilities under 

the marine insurance policy construed by this Court, Plaintiff will suffer uncertainty with respect 

to its responsibilities and obligations under the terms of the said policy.

52. As a result of the Defendant’s demands for payment under the terms of the policy 

of marine insurance attached hereto, and as a result of the lack of any coverage for the loss under 

Case 3:20-cv-05680-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 10 of 14
11

the facts and circumstances described herein, a real and justiciable issue exists with respect to the 

existence of valuable rights under the terms of the policies of marine insurance, and a bona fide,

actual and present dispute exists calling for this Court’s Declaratory Judgment.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Material Misrepresentation in the Updated LOC’s)

53. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 6 

through 20 as if set forth fully herein.

9. General Conditions & Warranties:

[....]

m. This contract is null and void in the event of non-disclosure or misrepresentation 

of a fact or circumstances material to our acceptance or continuance of this 

insurance. No action or inaction by us shall be deemed a waiver of this provision.

54. The post-incident investigation carried out by the Plaintiff established that, 

notwithstanding the representation in the updated LOC’s that all pre-insurance survey

recommendations (including the servicing of the fire extinguishers) had been completed, the fire 

extinguishers had not actually been properly serviced. 

55. The Defendant misrepresented/failed to disclose the material facts with regard to 

the completion of the pre-insurance survey requirements, including, but not limited to, the 

servicing of the fire extinguishers, as referenced in the updated LOC’s. 

56. The Defendant breached the provisions of Plaintiff’s policy set forth above by 

misrepresenting or by failing to disclose facts and/or circumstances which were material to the 

Plaintiff’s decision to accept and/or to continue the risk of insuring the Vessel alleged to have been 

owned by IVORY LADY LLC. 

Case 3:20-cv-05680-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 11 of 14
12

57. Had the Defendant disclosed the material facts herein, the Plaintiff would not have 

agreed to issue Policy No. CSRYP/178847, or would have issued a different policy, or would have 

charged a higher premium for the policy. 

58. Defendant’s misrepresentation and/or failure to disclose materials facts constitutes 

a breach of the duties imposed upon IVORY LADY LLC by the express terms of the policy and 

under applicable principles of federal admiralty law. 

59. The Defendant’s breach of the policy renders the said policy void ab initio and/or 

entitles the Plaintiff to rescind the policy. 

60. Notwithstanding the lack of any coverage under the Plaintiff’s policy of marine 

insurance, Defendant IVORY LADY LLC has made demand upon Plaintiff for payment of an 

amount equal to the full amount necessary to effect repairs to, or to replace, the Vessel insured 

under the said terms of the said policy of marine insurance.

61. As a result of the aforesaid misrepresentation of material facts at the time the 

Defendant applied for the policy of marine insurance, Plaintiff has sustained actual prejudice and 

seeks this Court’s Declaratory Judgment regarding the coverage afforded under the terms of Policy 

No. CSRYP/178847. Until such time as the Plaintiff is able to have its rights and responsibilities 

under the marine insurance policy construed by this Court, Plaintiff will suffer uncertainty with 

respect to its responsibilities and obligations under the terms of the said policy.

62. As a result of the Defendant’s demands for payment under the terms of the policy 

of marine insurance attached hereto, and as a result of the aforesaid misrepresentation of material 

facts and resulting lack of coverage, a real and justiciable issue exists with respect to the existence 

Case 3:20-cv-05680-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 12 of 14
13

of valuable rights under the terms of the policies of marine insurance, and a bona fide, actual and 

present dispute exists calling for this Court’s Declaratory Judgment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment from the Court:

(A) Declaring that the relationship of insurer and insured does not exist between 

Plaintiff and Defendant as regards the incident of June 30, 2020 in which the Vessel 

is alleged to have sustained damage;

(B) Declaring that the breach of the policy’s “one-trip” warranty by the Defendant as 

described herein voids Plaintiff Policy No. CSRYP/178847 ab initio and relieves 

the Plaintiff from any and all liability to the said Defendant under the terms of the 

Hull & Machinery Coverage afforded under the said policy of marine insurance; 

(C) Declaring that the breach of the policy’s survey compliance warranty by the 

Defendant as described herein voids Plaintiff Policy No. CSRYP/178847 ab initio

and relieves the Plaintiff from any and all liability to the said Defendant under the 

terms of the Hull & Machinery Coverage afforded under the said policy of marine 

insurance; 

(D) Declaring that the breach of the policy’s fire extinguisher warranty by the 

Defendant as described herein voids Plaintiff Policy No. CSRYP/178847 ab initio

and relieves the Plaintiff from any and all liability to the said Defendant under the 

terms of the Hull & Machinery Coverage afforded under the said policy of marine 

insurance; 

Case 3:20-cv-05680-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 13 of 14
14

(E) Declaring that the breach of the policy’s seaworthiness warranty by the Defendant 

as described herein voids Plaintiff Policy No. CSRYP/178847 ab initio and relieves 

the Plaintiff from any and all liability to the said Defendant under the terms of the 

Hull & Machinery Coverage afforded under the said policy of marine insurance; 

(F) Declaring that the Defendant’s misrepresentation of material facts voids Plaintiff’s 

Policy No. CSRYP/178847 from its inception; 

(G) Declaring that Plaintiff’s Policy No. CSRYP/178847 does not afford coverage to 

the Defendant for the incident of June 30, 2020 in which the insured vessel is 

alleged to have sustained damage;

(H) Any and all such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and

appropriate in the premises.

Dated: July 27, 2020

Fort Lauderdale, Florida

GOLDMAN & HELLMAN

Attorneys for Plaintiff

8751 W. Broward Boulevard

Suite 404

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324

Tel (954) 356-0460Fax (954) 832-0878 

By: /s/ Steven E. Goldman

STEVEN E. GOLDMAN, ESQ.

FLA. BAR NO. 345210

Case 3:20-cv-05680-TKW-HTC Document 1 Filed 07/27/20 Page 14 of 14