Oh, and the answer is "No" there is nothing in litigation that is truly "standard" nor "easy to answer" in the context of doing it properly, If it were easy and standard, there wouldn't lawyers that specialize in trial or litigation practices, or those like myself that even have a substantial small claims litigation practice. Candidly, if lawyers wont take the risk on the case on a contingent fee, and you can't justify hiring one to handle a litigation case, its a clear sign that you may headed down a very financially unproductive path. Any doubt, look at the hundreds of posts here or on other sites for "now that I got a judgment, how do I collect it?" questions. Of the small minority of people who actually successfully negotiate even the small claims environment to get a positive judgment, 90% or more of those people get stuck with a piece of paper they spend countless hours and often thousands of dollars to get, only to find out that they never actually get any money from the people they are suing, either because they don't know how or can't justify the expense of a lawyer to try to collect it properly. To be clear, its not called "the truth" system or "the fair" system, where you win or get a good result because your cause is just or your tell the truth. As a result, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted.If you don't know the answer to such a basic question, you really need to rethink using the litigation system as a means of resolving your dispute. Furthermore, until the plaintiff has actually completed the replacement, the court ruled that it would be merely advisory for it to render a decision as to whether the defendant had breached an obligation to pay replacement costs. The plaintiff conceded that it had not yet completed repairs or reconstruction of the premises as a result, the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the condition precedent of the policy and the defendant had not breached the contract. The court agreed with the defendant and ruled that the plaintiff was required to complete repairs or reconstruction within two years of the date of the fire before the defendant was required to provide replacement cost coverage. The plaintiff also argued that the policy did not contain a two-year deadline to complete the reconstruction. 1 For purposes of a motion to dismiss under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the movant must accept all of the allegations as true. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendant had committed an anticipatory breach of the policy when it expressed its refusal to pay the replacement costs unless repairs were completed within two years. Because the property had not been repaired within two years of the damages, as required by a condition precedent in the policy, the defendant argued that the plaintiff was precluded from recovering. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff had breached one of the conditions of the policy and, as a result, was precluded from recovering. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case since the claim was not ripe for adjudication. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant had unlawfully refused to pay for repairs to damaged portions of the plaintiff’s property following a fire. The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract based on a fire insurance policy. In considering a breach of contract and coverage action brought by Marr Investments, Inc. Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim for failure to plead sufficient factual content to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |