14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 51a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Declaratory action — Discovery — Depositions — Failure to attend — Where insured failed to cooperate with insurer in investigation of claim by failing to attend multiple depositions, including deposition ordered by court, and gave incomplete or misleading testimony regarding claims history and accident allegedly caused by phantom vehicle, no PIP coverage exists — Insurer is relieved of all obligations to insured, any other named insured or any omnibus insured for any damages received as result of alleged accident — Civil judgment entered against insured
UNITRIN DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. RENANDE HIPPOLITE, Defendant. Circuit Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 05 CA-9627. September 12, 2006. Lawrence R. Kirkwood, Judge. Counsel: Brian T. Forman, Kingsford & Rock, P.A., Maitland, for Plaintiff. Renande Aneas Hippolite, pro se Defendant
FINAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND COSTS JUDGMENT AGAINST RENANDE HIPPOLITE
This action was heard after this Court’s entry of an Order granting the Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Based on this previously entered Order, this Court makes the following findings and rulings:
1. The Defendant made a claim to the Plaintiff for a loss that allegedly occurred on Saturday, April 30, 2005, to which the Plaintiff assigned claim number [omitted] to the accident claim, under Unitrin Direct Auto Insurance Policy Number [omitted].
2. The occupants of the vehicle: (a) Renande Hippolite, (b) Junior Aneas, (c) Lorra Aneas, (d) Sandra Aneas, (e) Synthya Aneas, (f) Inobert Alliance, and (g) Mirand Sainthe’lhomme (a/k/a Mirand Saintelhomme, a/k/a Mirand Sainthelhomme, a/k/a Sainthe’lhomme Mirand).
3. 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.
4. The Defendant resided at [omitted] at the time of the alleged accident. This address was also implicated in another case, that of Unitrin v. Herode, Orange County Case #05-CA-9589. This case shares similar fact patterns as the Herode case, including: (a) a phantom vehicle was involved; (b) the accident occurred in a remote location; (c) the testimony of the witnesses regarding to the facts that led up to and after the accident was vague and contradictory; (d) there were no independent eyewitnesses to the accident; (e) the accident occurred late at night; and (f) in both accidents, the Defendant’s home address of [omitted] was implicated, Accordingly, the Plaintiff had concerns that the accident was staged.
5. Having serious questions concerning the facts of loss and claims history of the Defendant and the other occupants, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant and the other occupants to submit to an Examination under Oath.
6. On or about June 23, 2005, the Plaintiff conducted the Examinations under Oath of the Defendant and her son, Junior Aneas. Both examinees provided vague and conflicting testimony concerning the facts of the loss, as well as the events surrounding the loss.
7. On or about July 8, 2005, the Plaintiff conducted the Examination under Oath of Mirand Sainthe’lhomme. On July 26, 2005, the Plaintiff conducted the Examination under Oath of Inobert Alliance.
8. Mirand Sainthe’lhomme and Inobert Alliance each gave conflicting stories at their respective Examinations under Oath concerning the facts of the loss, as well as the events surrounding the loss.
9. On or about August 9, 2005, the Plaintiff denied coverage for all claims based upon the Defendant’s failure to cooperate with the Plaintiff’s investigation of the claim, misleading and/or incomplete testimony regarding the Defendant’s claim history, and material misrepresentations made by the Defendant relative to the claim.
10. Subsequent claims for bodily injury, uninsured motorist or personal injury protection benefits were made against the Plaintiff related to this motor vehicle accident. This has placed the Plaintiff in doubt as to its rights, responsibilities, obligations and duties under its policy of insurance with the Defendant, including the Plaintiff’s duty to provide the aforementioned coverage(s) and its duty to defend the Defendant.
11. The Defendant’s power, privilege, or right to receive personal injury protection, uninsured motorist, and bodily injury coverage under the insurance policy issued by the Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff’s obligation to defend the Defendant in any subsequent lawsuit, are dependent on this Court’s ruling.
12. This Court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Summary Judgment on September 12, 2006.
13. By directly disobeying this Court’s Order, and repeatedly refusing to appear for several properly scheduled depositions, the Defendant has exhibited a willful, deliberate and contumacious disregard for the Court and the judicial system in general. This argument is particularly compelling when one considers that on May 31, 2006 at approximately 9:00 a.m., this Court referred a hearing on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Defendant’s Deposition to Magistrate Glatt. The Defendant did appear at that hearing and then refused to agree to have Magistrate Glatt to hear the matter. At this hearing, the Plaintiff’s counsel warned the Defendant that if she refused to allow the undersigned to take her deposition short of a court order, the Plaintiff would seek costs against her. This was done with the benefit of a certified court translator/interpreter present and translating and interpreting the proceedings for the Defendant.
14. Ultimately, this Court ordered that the Defendant, Renande Hippolite, appear for her deposition at the Law Offices of Kingsford & Rock, P.A. located at 2300 Maitland Center Parkway, Suite #101, Maitland, Florida, on Friday, August 4, 2006 at 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. Pursuant to the Order, the Plaintiff provided a Haitian-Creole Translator and Interpreter, who was in attendance.
15. The Defendant once again refused to attend the deposition, this time a deposition that this Court ordered.
16. This Court specified the date, the time, and the location for the Defendant’s deposition to take place and, nevertheless, the Defendant continued to exhibit a deliberate, willful, and contumacious disregard for this Court’s order(s). While the Court recognizes that entry of a Final Judgment based on these grounds is a drastic measure, the Defendant’s conduct has been willful, ongoing and repeated in nature. See generally Samuels v. King Motor Company of Fort Lauderdale, 782 So.2d 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
17. The Defendant’s disregard for this Court’s orders and for properly noticed depositions has unnecessarily increased the costs of this litigation by forcing the Plaintiff to pay for numerous court reporter and translator fees when the Plaintiff should have only been required to pay for one set of those costs, that of the Defendant’s initial deposition.
18. Furthermore, this conduct has caused a disruption in the administration of justice and in the orderly flow of this court’s docket by requiring the Court to hear two motions to compel the Defendant’s deposition and then being forced to issue an Order which the Defendant ignored anyway.
19. Based on the forgoing, and based on a review of the pleadings and the court file’s contents, this 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, due to the material misrepresentations, and due to the conflicting statements made by the Defendant and the other occupants of the vehicle.
It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
A. The Plaintiff’s Motion For Final Declaratory Judgment and for a Costs Judgment Against Renande Hippolite is GRANTED.
B. The Plaintiff, Unitrin Direct Insurance Company, whose principal business address is One East Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, 60601, is relieved of any and all obligations, contractual or otherwise, to the Defendant, to any other named insured, or to any omnibus insured, for any damages whatsover that were received as a result of the alleged date of accident of Saturday, April 30, 2005 under Unitrin Direct Auto Insurance Policy Number [omitted] with an assigned claim number of [omitted].
C. 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, collision or property damage or a duty to defend Renande Hippolite.
D. A civil judgment in the amount of $2,642.87 shall be entered against the Defendant, Renande Hippolite, whose last known address is [omitted], and whose social security number is [omitted], with another social security number listed as [omitted], with a date of birth of [omitted], and whose Florida Driver’s License is [omitted].
E. Let multiple excutions issue forthwith.
