14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 50a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Declaratory judgment — Coverage — Misrepresentations — Where insured failed to cooperate with insurer’s investigation of accident allegedly caused by phantom vehicle by providing documents requested by insurer to corroborate insured’s testimony in examination under oath, insured and other vehicle occupants gave conflicting statements and made material misrepresentations in EUOs, and insurer’s accident reconstructionist found that accident could not have occurred in manner claimed by insured, no insurance coverage exists
UNITRIN DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. HERO DE CHARLESTIN (a/k/a CHARLESTIN HERODE), Defendant. Circuit Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 05-CA-9589. May 16, 2006. John H. Adams, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Brian T. Forman, Kingsford & Rock, P.A., Maitland, for Plaintiff. Charlestin Herode, pro se Defendant.
FINAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
This action, brought by the Plaintiff, Unitrin Direct Insurance Company, whose principal business address is One East Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, 60601, and having had a Clerk’s Default entered on December 15, 2005, for the Defendant’s failure to file a responsive pleading or paper, and the Plaintiff having providing notice via certified U.S. Mail to the Defendant on April 22, 2006, having heard the argument of the Parties, having reviewed the pleadings and court record, it is found that:
1. The Plaintiff’s Motion For Final Declaratory Judgment is GRANTED.
2. The Defendant made a claim to the Plaintiff for a loss that allegedly occurred on August 9, 2004 and the Plaintiff assigned claim number [omitted] to the accident claim, under Plaintiff’s Personal Auto Policy Number [omitted].
3. The occupants of the vehicle, the Defendant, Marie Chenet (“Chenet”), Celena Smith (“Smith”) and Seritah Zephyr (“Zephyr”), all allegedly sustained injuries and sought medical treatment.
4. The Defendant and all of the occupants have claimed that a phantom vehicle struck the Plaintiff’s vehicle, causing property damage to the vehicle and bodily injury to all of its occupants.
5. On or about May 13, 2005, the Plaintiff conducted the Defendant’s Examination Under Oath, and the Plaintiff explained that to the Defendant that it needed certain documents to corroborate the Defendant’s testimony and to further the Plaintiff’s investigation of the claim. The documents requested were: (a) a copy of the Defendant’s Passport, all pages and front and back of document, (b) a copy of your Immigration and Naturalization Card or Immigration and Customs Enforcement Card (review of the same would also be acceptable), to ensure that it matches the information that you provided to us at your Examination Under Oath concerning your identity, (c) a copy of all insurance paperwork for the last three years from any insurance company whatsoever; and (d) your girlfriend’s cellular telephone number at the time of the March 30, 2005 motor vehicle accident.
6. The Plaintiff gave the Defendant time to respond to the Plaintiff’s request for documentation, but no documents were ever produced. A reminder letter was also sent to the Defendant.
7. Having not received any response from the Defendant, the Plaintiff conducted the Examinations Under Oath of two of the occupants of the vehicle, Chenet and Smith, to attempt to cross reference testimony and obtain said information.
8. On or about October 13, 2005, Chenet and Smith each gave dramatic conflicting stories at their respective Examinations Under Oath concerning the facts of the accident and loss, as well as the events surrounding the loss.
9. This is particularly compelling due to Chenet’s and Smith’s conflicting statements and the Defendant’s failure to cooperate in this matter, which is particularly compelling when considering the Defendant’s loss history and refusal to produce the documents requested.
10. The Plaintiff then submitted its accident information to an accident reconstructionist who found that the accident could not have occurred the way the Defendant claimed it to have occurred.
11. This action was heard after entry of a Clerk Default on December 15, 2005 against the Defendant, Herode Charlestin a/k/a Charlestin Herode, whose last known address is [omitted], whose social security number is [omitted], with a date of birth of [omitted], and whose Florida Driver’s License is [omitted].
12. Based on the foregoing, the Court determines that no insurance coverage exists under the provisions of the insurance policy issued from the Plaintiff to the Defendant, due to the Defendant’s failure to cooperate with the Plaintiff in its investigation of this claim and due to the material misrepresentations and conflicting statements made by the Defendant and Claimants Marie Chenet (“Chenet”), Celena Smith (“Smith”) and Seritah Zephyr (“Zephyr”) in their examinations under oath and the other evidence contained in the court record.
It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff, Unitrin Direct Insurance Company, is relieved of any obligations, contractual or otherwise, related to the Plaintiff’s Personal Auto Policy Number [omitted] with assigned claim number [omitted], to the Defendant or any named or omnibus insureds.
If any previous or subsequent lawsuits are filed by the Defendant, any of the vehicle’s occupants, or any medical providers relative to the alleged accident, in either County and/or Circuit courts, the Plaintiff is not bound to provide any coverage whether it be bodily injury coverage, uninsured motorist coverage, personal injury protection coverage, medical payments coverage or a duty to defend.
