This matter sounds in breach of contract under a homeowner’s policy of insurance for wind damage allegedly sustained to the insured property on or about July 22,2021, but not reported to Defendant until December 22, 2021. Plaintiff testified that she purchased the property in 2017. At the pre-purchase inspection of the property, she was advised that the roof had only 5 to 7 years of life. Plaintiff further testified that she has no knowledge of a weather-related event(s) causing damage to her roof at any time nor on the date(s) identified in the Complaint. Within her interrogatory responses and in her testimony Plaintiff stated that she “didn’t observe any [damage]” related to a loss. She did “not discover the loss” and that Beaver Homes Services provided her with the date of loss of June 27,2020. However, the Complaint filed by David Heil, Esq., on March 25,2022, alleged that the property sustained “storm” damage on June 27, 2020. The Complaint further alleged that Defendant, breached its policy with its Insured by failing to pay for the roof. Finally, the Complaint alleged that “[i]t has been necessary for Plaintiff to retain the services of David R. Heil, P.A. and agreed to pay for the fee for his services.’ On December 22, 2021, Beaver Homes solicited Plaintiff to conduct a roof inspection of the property and execute a Contract for Services. Plaintiff was provided with the purported date of loss of July 22, 2021, by BEAVER HOMES (through a salesman who was soliciting business from her) with no correlation to her own personal knowledge of events occurring at her residence. Plaintiff testified that ROMAZKO did not review any related weather data with her. She was provided the purported date of loss of June 27,2020, by TODD ROMAZKO. TODD ROMAZKO provided Plaintiff with no explanation for the second date of loss. There was no retainer agreement in place between Plaintiff and The Law Offices of David HeiI. The testimony of Plaintiff directly refutes that the retainer agreement was ever executed. Moreover, the only retainer agreement produced contains statements regarding “claims filed after December 16, 2022.” This language appears to be in reliance upon FS 627.70152, which was not in existence on January 19, 2022. In order for the document presented as Exhibit “A’ to “Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Fraud Upon the Court” to have been executed by Plaintiff, on January 19, 2022, David Heil, Esq., would have had to be clairvoyant as the language of FS 627.70152 was not considered until a Special Session in the Florida legislature beginning on December 9, 2022, pursuant to the legislative history of the bill, admitted into evidence as Defendant’s Exhibit 1, during the evidentiary hearing. The document provided as Exhibit “A’ to Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Fraud Upon the Court” is further evidence of a concerted effort of fraud upon the Court. The evidence revealed that David HeiI, Esq./ The Law Offices of David HeiI, did not seek permission nor did David HeiI, Esq., have permission to present a demand for damages on behalf of Plaintiff, to Defendant, on January 19, 2022. The evidence revealed that David Heil, Esq./ The Law Offices of David Heil, did not seek permission nor did David Heil, Esq., have permission to serve a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation on Plaintiff’s behalf. The evidence revealed that David Heil, Esq./ The Law Offices of David Heil, did not seek permission nor did David Heil, Esq., have permission to file the Complaint on March 25, 2022, initiating litigation in this matter, on behalf of Plaintiff. There is no evidence of an attorney – client relationship between David HeiI, Esq./ The Law Offices of David HeiI, and Plaintiff. Here, it was not Plaintiff herself perpetrating fraud upon the Court, but instead those representing her in this matter. She fell victim to a scheme designed by BEAVER HOMES, TODD ROMAZKO AND DAVID HEIL, Esq. for financial gain. Nikki Hawkins worked diligently to uncover the fraud and secured the Order Granting Defendant’s MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FRAUD UPON THE COURT OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE AWARD OF SANCTIONS FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS TO DEFENDANT.
