IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

KEY WEST DIVISION 

SALTPONDS CONDOMINIUM ) 

ASSOCIATION, INC., ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 ) Case No. 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY;) 

COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY; ) 

FIRST SPECIALTY INSURANCE ) 

CORP.; HALLMARK SPECIALTY ) 

INSURANCE COMPANY/LLOYD’S ) 

OF LONDON; HOMELAND ) 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW ) 

YORK; LEXINGTON INSURANCE ) 

COMPANY; LIBERTY SURPLUS ) 

INSURANCE CORPORATION; ) 

LLOYD’S OF LONDON; MITSUI ) 

SUMITOMO INSURANCE ) 

COMPANY OF AMERICA; RSUI ) 

INDEMNITY; SCOTTSDALE ) 

INSURANCE COMPANY; and ) 

UNITED NATIONAL INSURANCE ) 

COMPANY, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF DEFENDANTS ROCKHILL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, HOMELAND INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, 

RSUI INDEMNITY COMPANY, AND SCOTTSDALE 

INSURANCE COMPANY 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 1 of 18
2 

Rockhill Insurance Company (“Rockhill”), Homeland Insurance Company of 

New York (“Homeland”), RSUI Indemnity Company (“RSUI”) and Scottsdale 

Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), defendants in the above-styled matter, with the 

consent of all other defendants in this action and within the time prescribed by law 

and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, file this notice of removal, respectfully showing 

the Court as follows: 

I. COMMENCEMENT AND SERVICE 

1. 

Plaintiff Saltponds Condominium Association, Inc. (“Saltponds”) 

commenced this action on September 15, 2022 by filing a complaint in the Circuit 

Court of the 16th Judicial Circuit, Monroe County, Florida, which county is within 

the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the Key West 

Division of this Court. (Exhibit 1: Notice of Service of Process, Summons, and 

Complaint served on Rockhill; Exhibit 2: Notice of Service of Process, Summons, 

and Complaint served on RSUI; Exhibit 3: Notice of Service of Process, Summons, 

and Complaint served on Scottsdale; Exhibit 4: Notice of Service of Process, 

Summons, and Complaint served on Homeland). The lawsuit is styled as above and 

is numbered as Case No. 22-CA-000632-K. 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 2 of 18
3 

2. 

Rockhill was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on November 

30, 2022, by the Chief Financial Officer for the Florida Department of Financial 

Services, who transmitted a copy of the summons and complaint by electronic 

delivery to Rockhill’s registered agent, Laurann M. Sage. (Ex. 1: Notice of Service 

of Process on Rockhill). 

3. 

RSUI was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on November 

30, 2022, by the Chief Financial Officer for the Florida Department of Financial 

Services, who transmitted a copy of the summons and complaint by electronic 

delivery to RSUI’s registered agent, Lynette Coleman. (Ex. 2: Notice of Service of 

Process on RSUI). 

4. 

Scottsdale was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on 

November 30, 2022, by the Chief Financial Officer for the Florida Department of 

Financial Services, who transmitted a copy of the summons and complaint by 

electronic delivery to Scottsdale’s registered agent, Corporation Service Company. 

(Ex. 3: Notice of Service of Process on Scottsdale). 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 3 of 18
4 

5. 

Homeland was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on 

November 30, 2022, by the Chief Financial Officer for the Florida Department of 

Financial Services, who transmitted a copy of the summons and complaint by 

electronic delivery to Homeland’s registered agent, Lynette Coleman. (Ex. 4: Notice 

of Service of Process on Scottsdale). 

II. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL 

6. 

Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because this 

action is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds 

the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

7. 

The notice of removal of Rockhill, Homeland, RSUI and Scottsdale has been 

timely 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). 

8. 

All other defendants named in this lawsuit have consented to the removal of 

this lawsuit to federal court. (Composite Exhibit 5: Consents to Removal of CoDefendants). 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 4 of 18
5 

III. COMPLETE DIVERSITY 

9. 

Saltponds is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State 

of Florida, with its principal place of business located in Key West, Florida (Monroe 

County). 

10. 

Rockhill is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of 

Arizona, with its principal place of business located in Columbus, Ohio (Franklin 

County). Therefore, Rockhill is diverse from plaintiff. 

11. 

This Court should ignore the citizenship of Homeland because, as discussed 

below, Homeland has been improperly joined as a defendant in this action. Even so, 

Homeland is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New 

York, with its principal place of business located in Minnetonka, Minnesota. 

Therefore, Homeland is diverse from plaintiff. 

12. 

This Court should ignore the citizenship of RSUI because, as discussed below, 

RSUI has been improperly joined as a defendant in this action. Even so, RSUI is a 

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 5 of 18
6 

with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Therefore, RSUI is 

diverse from plaintiff. 

13. 

This Court should ignore the citizenship of Scottsdale because, as discussed 

below, Scottsdale, has been improperly joined in this action. Even so, Scottsdale is 

a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arizona, with its 

principal place of business located in Scottsdale, Arizona. Therefore, Scottsdale is 

diverse from plaintiff. 

14. 

This Court should ignore the citizenship of Colony Insurance Company 

(“Colony”) because, as discussed below, Colony has been improperly joined as a 

defendant in this action. Even so, Colony is a corporation organized and existing 

under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, with its principal place of business 

located in Richmond, Virginia. Therefore, Colony is diverse from plaintiff. 

15. 

This Court should ignore the citizenship of Swiss Re Corporate Capacity 

Insurance Corporation as successor in interest to First Specialty Insurance 

Corporation (“First Specialty”) because, as discussed below, First Specialty has been 

improperly joined as a defendant in this action. Even so, First Specialty is a 

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri, with its 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 6 of 18
7 

principal place of business located in New York. Therefore, First Specialty is diverse 

from plaintiff. 

16. 

This Court should ignore the citizenship of Hallmark Specialty Insurance 

Company (“Hallmark”) because, as discussed below, Hallmark has been improperly 

joined as a defendant in this action. Even so, Hallmark is a corporation organized 

and existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, with its principal place of 

business located in Dallas, Texas. Therefore, Hallmark is diverse from plaintiff. 

17. 

This Court should ignore the citizenship of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s 

of London Subscribing to Policy 93PRX16EDCB, erroneously named Lloyd’s of 

London, (“Certain Underwriters”) because, as discussed below, Certain 

Underwriters has been improperly joined as a defendant in this action. Even so, 

Certain Underwriters is solely comprised of a single corporation, AXIS Corporate 

Capital UK II Limited, which is organized and existing under the laws of England 

and Wales, with its principal place of business located in London, England. 

Therefore, Certain Underwriters is diverse from plaintiff. 

18. 

This Court should ignore the citizenship of Lexington Insurance Company 

(“Lexington”) because, as discussed below, Lexington has been improperly joined 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 7 of 18
8 

as a defendant in this action. Even so, Lexington is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business 

located in Boston, Massachusetts. Therefore, Lexington is diverse from plaintiff. 

19. 

This Court should ignore the citizenship of Liberty Surplus Insurance 

Corporation (“Liberty”) because, as discussed below, Liberty has been improperly 

joined as a defendant in this action. Even so, Liberty is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of New Hampshire, with its principal place of 

business located in Boston, Massachusetts. Therefore, Liberty is diverse from 

plaintiff. 

20. 

This Court should ignore the citizenship of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s 

of London Subscribing to Policy B1230AP04438A16, erroneously named Lloyd’s 

of London, (“London Underwriters”) because, as discussed below, the London 

Underwriters have been improperly joined as a defendant in this action. Even so, 

London Underwriters is comprised of the following corporations: (a) Lloyd’s 

Syndicate ASC 1414 Ascot Group, which is organized and existing under the laws 

of Bermuda, with its principal place of business located in London, England; (b) 

Lloyd’s Syndicate TAL 1183, which is organized and existing under the laws of the 

United Kingdom, with its principal place of business located in London, England; 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 8 of 18
9 

(c) Lloyd’s Syndicate HDU 382, which is organized and existing under the laws of 

the United Kingdom, with its principal place of business located in London, 

England; (d) Lloyd’s Syndicate AMA 1200, which is organized and existing under 

the laws of the United Kingdom, with its principal place of business located in 

London, England; (e) Lloyd’s Syndicate QBE 1886, which is organized and existing 

under the laws of the United Kingdom, with its principal place of business located 

in London, England; (f) Lloyd’s Syndicate APL 1969, which is organized and 

existing under the laws of the United Kingdom, with its principal place of business 

located in London, England; and (g) Lloyd’s Syndicate ARK 4020, which is 

organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom, with its principal 

place of business located in London, England. Therefore, London Underwriters is 

diverse from plaintiff. 

21. 

This Court should ignore the citizenship of Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance 

Company of America (“Mitsui”) because, as discussed below, Mitsui has been 

improperly joined as a defendant in this action. Even so, Mitsui is a corporation 

organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal 

places of business located in Warren, New Jersey and New York, New York. 

Therefore, Mitsui is diverse from plaintiff. 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 9 of 18
10 

22. 

This Court should ignore the citizenship of United National Insurance 

Company (“United”) because, as discussed below, United has been improperly 

joined in this action. Even so, United is a corporation organized and existing under 

the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business located in 

Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. Therefore, United National is diverse from plaintiff. 

23. 

For diversity purposes, a corporation is a citizen of (1) its state of 

incorporation; and (2) the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(c)(1). Accordingly, there is complete diversity of citizenship between 

plaintiff and the only properly joined defendant corporation in this action, Rockhill. 

24. 

“[R]emoval may be appropriate if a nondiverse party has been fraudulently 

joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction.” Pomona v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 2020 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65998 at *3 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2020) (citing Triggs v. John 

Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 1998). As grounds for alleging 

improper joinder of Homeland, RSUI, Scottsdale, Colony, First Specialty, Hallmark, 

Certain Underwriters, Lexington, Liberty, London Underwriters, Mitsui and United 

(hereinafter “the excess insurers”), the removing defendants show that each of the 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 10 of 18
11 

excess insurers cannot be found liable to plaintiff under any set of facts or theories 

of law alleged in plaintiff’s complaint. The terms of the primary commercial 

property insurance policy issued by Rockhill, which is “Exhibit A” to plaintiff’s 

complaint, as well as the terms of the excess insurers’ excess policies plainly state 

that the excess insurers’ excess policies are not triggered until the claimed loss 

exceeds $10,000,000.00 (ten million dollars) or more. Plaintiff’s claimed loss and 

the amount in controversy in this action is $2,717,876.55, (Ex. 1: Complaint, ¶ 13), 

which does not trigger any of the excess insurers’ excess policies. 

25. 

Attached to this notice of removal as “Exhibit 6” is a copy of the Schedule of 

Participating/Underlying Insurers (“Schedule”), which shows the amounts at which 

each defendant’s coverage attaches. The Schedule states that the excess policies 

issued by Homeland, RSUI, Scottsdale, Colony, First Specialty, Hallmark, Certain 

Underwriters, Lexington, Liberty, London Underwriters, Mitsui and United do not 

attach until and unless plaintiffs’ loss exceeds $10,000,000.00, which it does not in 

the case. The Schedule does not even reference the London Underwriters’ policy 

because that policy’s coverage does not attach until plaintiff’s loss exceeds 

$1,000,000,000.00 (one billion dollars). 

26. 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 11 of 18
12 

Plaintiff’s complaint therefore fails to state a claim against Homeland, RSUI, 

Scottsdale, Colony, First Specialty, Hallmark, Certain Underwriters, Lexington, 

Liberty, London Underwriters, Mitsui and United. See Reesey v. Fed. Emerg. Mgt. 

Agency, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 207995 at *7-9 (S.D. Fla. July 9, 2013) (dismissing 

breach of contract claim against excess insurer whose excess policy was not 

triggered by the claimed loss); Ironshore Indem., Inc. v. Banyon 1030-32, LLC,

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153455 at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 17, 2010) (dismissing 

declaratory judgment action against excess insurer because the underlying coverage 

had not been exhausted). 

IV. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY 

27. 

Plaintiff has alleged in its complaint at paragraph 13 that the total amount of 

claimed damages from Hurricane Irma is $2,717,876.55. (Ex. 1: Complaint, ¶ 13). 

28. 

Rockhill provides the primary layer of insurance coverage in the amount of 

$10,000,000.00. (Ex. 6: Schedule). Plaintiff’s claimed loss in the amount of 

$2,717,876.55 implicates only the primary layer of coverage provided by Rockhill, 

and clearly exceeds $75,000.00. 

29. 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 12 of 18
13 

As shown above, the amount in controversy as to Rockhill, the only properly 

joined defendant, exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and 

costs, and satisfies the jurisdictional prerequisite of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

V. CONCLUSION 

30. 

Because the amount in controversy in this lawsuit as to each properly joined 

defendant exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, 

and there is complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and all properly 

joined defendants, this case is subject to the original jurisdiction of this Court under 

28 U.S.C. § 1332, and it may be removed to this Court pursuant to the provisions of 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. 

31. 

Attached to this notice of removal as “Exhibit 7” are true and correct copies 

of all other process, pleadings, and orders served upon Rockhill, Homeland, RSUI 

and Scottsdale in this case, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). 

32. 

Rockhill, Homeland, RSUI and Scottsdale have given written notice of the 

filing of this notice of removal plaintiff by mailing a copy of this notice to its 

attorneys of record by U.S. Mail and electronic mail at the following addresses: 

Joseph W. Janssen, III, Esq. 

John M. Siracusa, Esq. 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 13 of 18
14 

Janssen, Siracusa & Keegan PLLC 

19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618 

Miami, Florida 33130 

jsiracusa@jasilaw.com

jjanssen@jasilaw.com

33. 

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Rockhill, Homeland, RSUI and 

Scottsdale will provide written notice of the filing of this notice of removal to Kevin 

Madok, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the 16th Judicial Circuit, Monroe County, 

Florida, and serve copies upon all parties. 

WHEREFORE, defendants Rockhill Insurance Company, Homeland 

Insurance Company of New York, RSUI Indemnity Company, and Scottsdale 

Insurance Company respectfully pray that the above-captioned lawsuit be removed 

to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Key West 

Division. 

Respectfully submitted this 9th day of December, 2022. 

/s/ Elizabeth D. Salinas

Elizabeth D. Salinas, Esq. 

FL Bar: 113394 

Mozley, Finlayson & Loggins LLP 

4767 New Broad Street 

Orlando, FL 32814 

407.514.2765 

ESalinas@MFLLaw.com

Attorney for Defendants Rockhill Insurance 

Company, Homeland Insurance Company of 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 14 of 18
15 

New York, RSUI Indemnity Company, and 

Scottsdale Insurance Company 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 15 of 18
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

KEY WEST DIVISION 

SALTPONDS CONDOMINIUM ) 

ASSOCIATION, INC., ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 ) Case No. 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY;) 

COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY; ) 

FIRST SPECIALTY INSURANCE ) 

CORP.; HALLMARK SPECIALTY ) 

INSURANCE COMPANY/LLOYD’S ) 

OF LONDON; HOMELAND ) 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW ) 

YORK; LEXINGTON INSURANCE ) 

COMPANY; LIBERTY SURPLUS ) 

INSURANCE CORPORATION; ) 

LLOYD’S OF LONDON; MITSUI ) 

SUMITOMO INSURANCE ) 

COMPANY OF AMERICA; RSUI ) 

INDEMNITY; SCOTTSDALE ) 

INSURANCE COMPANY; and ) 

UNITED NATIONAL INSURANCE ) 

COMPANY, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 16 of 18
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing NOTICE OF 

REMOVAL using the Court’s electronic filing system, and served a true and correct 

copy of same via U.S. Mail and electronic mail on the following: 

Joseph W. Janssen, III, Esq. 

John M. Siracusa, Esq. 

Janssen, Siracusa & Keegan PLLC 

19 West Flagler Street, Suite 618 

Miami, Florida 33130 

jsiracusa@jasilaw.com

jjanssen@jasilaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Saltponds Condominium Association, Inc. 

Antonio D. Morin, Esq. 

Akerman LLP 

Three Brickell City Centre 

98 Southeast 7th Street 

Miami, FL 33131 

antonio.morin@akerman.com

Attorney for Hallmark Specialty 

Insurance Company

Robert M. Darroch, Esq.

GOODMAN MCGUFFEY LLP 

6751 Professional Parkway, Suite 103 

Sarasota, FL 34240-8449 

rdarroch@GM-LLP.com

FLService@GM-LLP.com

Attorney for Colony Insurance 

Company

Christopher M. Ramey, Esq. 

Justin W. Sblano, Esq. 

Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP 

400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 2300 

Tampa, Florida 33602 

cramey@butler.legal

jsblano@butler.legal

Attorneys for First Specialty Insurance 

Corporation

Melissa McMillan Sims, Esq. 

Judith B. Goldstein, Esq. 

Berk Merchant & Sims PLC 

2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 700 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

msims@berklawfirm.com

jgoldstein@berklawfirm.com

Attorneys for Lexington Insurance 

Company

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 17 of 18
Christine M. Renella, Esq. 

Zelle LLP 

SunTrust International Center 

One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 

1600 

Miami, FL 33131 

crenella@zellelaw.com

Attorney for Liberty Surplus Insurance 

Corporation

Perry R. Goodman, Esq. 

Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass 

110 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 610 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

pgoodman@moundcotton.com

Attorney for Mitsui Sumitomo 

Insurance Company of America 

Jason M. Chodos, Esq. 

Zelle LLP 

One SE Third Ave., Suite 1600 

Miami, FL 33131 

jchodos@zellelaw.com

Attorney for United National Insurance 

Company

Michael McGriskin, Esq. 

Phelps Dunbar LLP 

100 S. Ashley Drive Suite 2000 

Tampa, FL 33602 

michael.mcgriskin@phelps.com

Attorney for Certain Underwriters at 

Lloyd’s of London Subscribing to 

Policy B1230AP04438A16

Michele A. Lo Presti, Esq. 

Chartwell Law 

100 SE 2ndStreet, Suite 2150 

mloprestiwouters@chartwelllaw.com

Attorney for Certain Underwriters at 

Lloyd’s of London Subscribing to 

Policy 93PRX16EDCB

This 9th day of December, 2022. 

/s/ Elizabeth D. Salinas 

ELIZABETH D. SALINAS 

Florida Bar No. 113394 

Attorney for Defendants Rockhill Insurance 

Company, Homeland Insurance Company of 

New York, RSUI Indemnity Company, and 

Scottsdale Insurance Company 

Case 4:22-cv-10108-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 18 of 18