Opinion ID: 2812344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 200 leslie files suit in 2010

Text: The matter appeared closed, as 200 Leslie took no steps to challenge the damage estimate after hearing from QBE’s managing agent. But nearly five years and 30 Atlantic hurricanes later, 200 Leslie filed this action. We recount the facts surrounding the initiation of this lawsuit.
In the summer of 2010, 200 Leslie’s current counsel, Jeffrey Golant, approached the principal of a public adjustment and loss consulting company (the “public adjuster”) with information regarding several condominium associations that did not receive payments from QBE for claims related to the 2005 Hurricane Wilma. The public adjuster approached 200 Leslie, and 200 Leslie allowed him to inspect the building’s roof and certain units that 200 Leslie identified as having 4 Case: 13-15228 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 5 of 16 problems with their windows and sliding glass doors. On June 10, 2010, 200 Leslie entered into a contract with the public adjuster’s company for its services on a 20-percent contingency fee. Thereafter, 200 Leslie retained current counsel Golant to represent it in this action for a 40-percent contingency fee. On October 18, 2010, 200 Leslie filed its complaint against QBE in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The following day, and nearly five years after the claim seemed to be settled, 200 Leslie notified QBE that it was challenging the prior assessment and demanding an appraisal of its losses from the 2005 Hurricane Wilma. Eventually, on July 12, 2012, QBE filed a Third Amended Complaint. In Count I, 200 Leslie sought a judgment declaring that glass windows and sliding glass doors that provide access to a single condominium unit were covered under the policy. In Count II, 200 Leslie sought a judgment declaring that it was entitled to have the amount of its Hurricane Wilma damage determined through the appraisal process identified in the policy.
While its lawsuit was pending, 200 Leslie provided QBE with a sworn Statement in Proof of Loss (the “proof of loss”) on a form supplied by QBE. The proof of loss was executed by Richard Vilain, a member of 200 Leslie’s board of directors. In the proof of Loss, 200 Leslie stated that its “whole loss and damage” 5 Case: 13-15228 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 6 of 16 from Hurricane Wilma was $10,934,677.49. However, 200 Leslie attached cost estimates for roof and window replacements, which totaled $10,934,677.49 and $7,907,404.43, respectively. 200 Leslie altered the proof of loss form supplied by QBE. The proof of loss form supplied by QBE also included a statement that “no articles are mentioned herein or in the annexed schedules but such as were destroyed or damaged at the time of said loss” (emphasis added). Counsel Golant struck a line through that language, and Vilain placed his initials next to the marking. Golant struck the language because he believed that it was not an accurate description of the benefits under the policy given that, based on his interpretation of the policy, 200 Leslie was entitled to certain benefits beyond the replacement value of items that were directly damaged by the hurricane. Specifically, Golant concluded that it was not possible to give a figure for 200 Leslie’s “whole loss and damage” while also stating that the figure included only damaged property. After 200 Leslie submitted the altered proof of loss, QBE’s third-party managing agent requested that 200 Leslie provide an inventory of damaged and undamaged property, pursuant to the policy’s terms. By the time of the bench trial in the district court, QBE had not received from 200 Leslie the inventory of damage and undamaged property that it had requested. Furthermore, the attachments to the proof of loss do not specify which windows were damaged and 6 Case: 13-15228 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 7 of 16 which were not. Indeed, nobody associated with 200 Leslie knew which windows or sliding doors were damaged and which were not damaged. This impacted the work of Andrew Bertucci, the claims adjuster working for QBE’s third-party managing agent in 2010. QBE also sent 200 Leslie a letter demanding an examination under oath of the 200 Leslie representative with the most knowledge of (1) the quantum of loss; (2) the cause of the loss; (3) the maintenance history of the buildings; (4) the preparation of the claim; (5) any repairs of the damaged property and any estimates for repair; and (6) whether 200 Leslie or the owners of individual units are responsible for repairing or replacing windows and sliding glass doors that provide access to single units. In response, 200 Leslie produced Vilain, who was then the president of 200 Leslie’s board, for an examination under oath. In his only preparation for the examination, Vilain met with Golant and reviewed the proof of loss for approximately five minutes. As a result, Vilain did not know the answers to many of the questions asked at the examination. On September 21, 2012, while 200 Leslie’s Third Amended Complaint was pending in the district court, QBE sent to 200 Leslie a letter denying its claim in the entirety. QBE based its decision on, inter alia, its conclusion that 200 Leslie failed to comply with its post-loss obligations. 7 Case: 13-15228 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 8 of 16