Motion,Ex Parte: Geetha John Plaintiff vs. State Farm Florida Insurance Company Defendant

On October 08, 2021 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Geetha John , and State Farm Florida Insurance Company , for 3 in the District Court of Broward County.

Preview

Filing# 140777738 E-Filed 12/21/2021 03:02:32 PM .TH IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE-21-018644 GEETHA JOHN, Petitioner, V. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. i DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW COMES NOW the Defendant, STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY ("STATE FARM"), by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 1.190 Fla. R. Civ. P., hereby moves this Honorable Court for Leave to Amend its Affirmative Defenses and in support thereof,states as follows: 1. This case involves a claim for insurance benefits related to an allegedplumbing leak. 2. At the time of rece*t of the initial complaint, undersigned counsel had limited information as to the defenses in this case. 3. As a result,State Farm seeks to add affirmative defense #4. 4. Plaintiff will not be prejudice by the addition of the aforementioned affirmative defense. 5. Plaintiff will have ample opportunity to question the Defendant's corporate on representative its affirmative defenses. MEMORANDUM OF LAW STATE FARM seeks to amend its Affirmative Defenses so that the issues in this case can be fairlyadjudicatedon their merits, attributing where liability it is due, and in a manner that *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 12/21/2021 03:02:31 PM.**** CASE NO.: CACE-21-018644 does not prejudiceany current party. Florida Rule o f Civil Procedure 1. 190(a) states that A defendant demonstrating a "[1]eaveofthe court shall be given freelywhen justiceso requires." to prevailwith an assertion of a properly available defense potential is in amending justified its Answer under Florida law. See, e.g., Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Crabtree Constr. Co., 1%3 So. 2d 570, 572-73 (Fla.4th DCA 1973). Absent exceptionalcircumstances, motions for leave to amend a pleading should be granted,and refusal to do so constitutes an abuse o f discretion. See Morgan v. Bank of New York Mellon, 200 So. 3d 792 (Fla.1StDCA 2016). Denying a motion for leave to amend a defendant's answer to assert an additional affirmative defense is an abuse of discretion by the trial court. See, per curium, Carib Ocean Shipping Inc. v. Armas, 854 So. 2d 234, 237 (Fla.3d DCA 1992) (findingthat a trial court abused its discretion after precludinga defendant from amending its answer to assert workers' compensation immunity defense).Thus, a trial court will allow a requested amendment unless "allowing the amendment would prejudicethe opposing party; the privilegehas been abused; or amendment would be fut\le." Bill Williams Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. v. Haymarket Oop. Bank, 592 So. 2d 302, 305 (Fla.1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, State Farm seeks to amend its Affirmative Defenses. In accordance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a), a copy ofthe proposed Amended Affirmative Defenses is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." The proposed amendment will not serve to prejudicethe nor significantly Plaintiff, delay litigation. WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, STATE FARM respectfullyrequests this Honorable Court enter an Order allowing its proposed amendment, deeming the proposed Amended Affirmative Defense filed,and granting any further relief this Court deems just and proper. Page 2 of 3 CASE NO.: CACE-21-018644 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoingwas e-mailed this 21st day of December, 2021 to all counsel on the attached service list. KUBICKI DRAPER Attorneys for Defendant 110 East Broward Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft.Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Direct Line: 954-713-2402 FBN: 1003231 /s/Sha-Mekeyia N. Davis BY: Earleen H. Cote, Esq. Sha-Mekeyia N. Davis Page 3 of 3