IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.

JASON J. HAMMETT, on behalf of JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE FARM FLORIDA

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.
_________________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff JASON J. HAMMETT ("HAMMETT"), on behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated, by his undersigned counsel, sues Defendant STATE FARM FLORIDA

INSURANCE COMPANY ("STATE FARM"), and alleges as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. HAMMETT is a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Broward County,

Florida.

2. STATE FARM is incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida with its

principal place of business located in Winter Haven, Florida. STATE FARM provides

homeowners insurance throughout the State of Florida, is registered to do business in Florida,

and transacts business in Broward County, Florida.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

LEE & AMTZIS, P.L.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because this is a class

action and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $15,000.00, exclusive of attorneys’ fees,

interest, and costs.

4. Venue is proper in Broward County, Florida because a substantial part of the

events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Broward County, Florida. STATE

FARM is subject to personal jurisdiction in Broward County, Florida, as STATE FARM insures

numerous individuals in Broward County, Florida and numerous class members are present in

Broward County, Florida.

BACKGROUND

5. STATE FARM’s Homeowners insurance policies (hereinafter the "Policies")

provides insurance benefits to its insureds. Certain STATE FARM Policies, including

HAMMETT’s Policy, provide replacement cost loss settlement coverage.

6. STATE FARM Policies in Florida contain specific hurricane coverage

endorsements.

7. Pursuant to STATE FARM hurricane coverage endorsement FE-5710.3, numerous

provisions of the standard Policies were modified, including the replacement cost loss settlement

provisions.

8. Endorsement FE-5710.3 provides the following provisions with regard to

replacement cost loss settlement:1

COVERAGE A – DWELLING

1. A1-Replacement Cost Loss Settlement – Similar Construction.

a. Applicable only to the dwelling covered under SECTION 1 –

COVERAGES, COVERAGE A – DWELLING and screening that
covers the windows of the dwelling.
1
Endorsement FE-5710.3 is attached hereto as Exhibit “1.”

LEE & AMTZIS, P.L.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2
 We will pay the cost to repair or replace with similar construction and for
the same use on the premises shown in the Declarations, the damaged
part of the dwelling, subject to the following:

(1) until actual repair or replacement is completed, we will pay

only the actual cash value at the time of the loss of the damaged
part of the dwelling, up to the applicable limit of liability shown in
the Declarations, not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the
damaged part of the dwelling;

(2) when the repair or replacement is actually completed, we will

pay the covered additional amount you actually and necessarily
spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the dwelling, or an
amount up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the
Declarations, whichever is less;

(3) to receive any additional payments on a replacement cost basis,

you must complete the actual repair or replacement of the damaged
part of the dwelling within two years after the date of loss, and
notify us within 30 days after the work has been completed; and

(4) our payment will be based on any building, zoning or land use
ordinance or law in effect at the time of the loss regulating the
construction, repair or demolition of the damaged portion of the
dwelling.

If the undamaged portion of the dwelling requires demolition due

to the enforcement of any building, zoning or land use ordinance or
law in effect at the time of the loss, we will also pay for the actual
cost of demolition and the actual cost of debris removal of the
undamaged portion of the dwelling.

This limit of insurance is provided for building, zoning or land use

ordinance or law coverage is an amount equal to 25% of the
COVERAGE A – DWELLING limit applicable at the time of the
loss.

b. Applicable only to screening, other than screening that covers the

windows of the dwelling covered under SECTION 1 – COVERAGES,
COVERAGE A – DWELLING.

2. A2 – Replacement Cost Loss Settlement – Common Construction.

a. Applicable only to the dwelling covered under SECTION 1 –

COVERAGES, COVERAGE A – DWELLING and screening that

LEE & AMTZIS, P.L.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

3
covers the windows of the dwelling.

We will pay the cost to repair or replace with common construction and
for the same use on the premises shown in the Declarations, the damaged
part of the dwelling, subject to the following:

(1) we will pay only for repair or replacement of the damaged part of the
dwelling with common construction techniques and materials commonly
used by the building trades in standard new construction. We will not pay
the cost to repair or replace obsolete, antique or custom construction with
like kind and quality;

(2) until actual repair or replacement is completed, we will pay only the
actual cash value at the time of the loss of the damaged part of the
dwelling, up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the Declarations,
not to exceed the cost to repair or replace the damaged part of the dwelling
as described in a.(1) above;

(3) when the repair or replacement is actually completed as described in a.

(1) above, we will pay the covered additional amount you actually and
necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the dwelling, or
an amount up to the applicable limit of liability shown in the
Declarations, whichever is less;

(4) to receive any additional payments on a replacement cost basis, you

must complete the actual repair or replacement of the damaged part of the
dwelling within two years after the date of loss, and notify us within 30
days after the work has been completed; and

(5) our payment will be based on any building, zoning or land use
ordinance or law in effect at the time of the loss regulating the
construction, repair or demolition of the damaged portion of the dwelling.

If the undamaged portion of the dwelling requires demolition due to the

enforcement of any building, zoning or land use ordinance or law in effect
at the time of the loss, we will also pay for the actual cash value, the actual
cost of demolition and the actual cost of debris removal of the undamaged
portion of the dwelling.

This limit of insurance provided for building, zoning or land use ordinance
or law coverage is an amount equal to 25% of the COVERAGE A –
DWELLING limit applicable at the time of the loss.

b. Applicable only to screening, other than screening that covers the

windows of the dwelling covered under SECTION 1 – COVERAGES,
COVERAGE A – DWELLING.

LEE & AMTZIS, P.L.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

4
 We will pay the actual cash value at the time of loss for screening, up to
$15,000.

FACTS AS TO PLAINTIFF

9. HAMMETT was a party to an agreement with STATE FARM whereby STATE

FARM provided homeowners insurance to him.

10. HAMMETT purchased coverage effective May 1, 2005 with an expiration date of

May 1, 2006.2

11. Pursuant to the Declarations page, HAMMETT purchased coverage with the A1

Replacement Cost Loss Settlement - Similar Construction coverage under hurricane coverage

endorsement FE-5710.3.

12. In October 2005, due to the effects of hurricane Wilma, HAMMETT incurred

damages to his home.

13. HAMMETT submitted a claim to STATE FARM and STATE FARM inspected the

premises and issued a Statement of Loss Report (“Report”).3

14. Part of HAMMETT’s claim was due to the loss of screening for his patio/pool

enclosure.

15. Pursuant to STATE FARM’s explanation of building replacement cost benefits,

STATE FARM did not reimburse him for the replacement cost value of the screening. Instead,

STATE FARM depreciated the amount and reimbursed him for the actual cash value for the

screening of the patio/pool enclosure. See Report, page “4.”

2
A true and correct copy of the Declarations page of the policy is attached hereto as Exhibit “2.” Although not
accurately noted on the Declarations page, HAMMETT is an additional insured under the policy issued to William
and Vada Hammett.
3
A true and correct copy of the Report is attached hereto as Exhibit “3.”

LEE & AMTZIS, P.L.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

5
 16. Pursuant to endorsement FE-5710.3, HAMMETT was entitled to replacement

cost reimbursement at similar construction rates.

17. Nowhere in the hurricane coverage endorsement FE-5710.3 under A1 Coverage

does it provide that STATE FARM can reduce by way of depreciation the reimbursement amount

to the actual cash value amount.

18. Conversely, in the hurricane coverage endorsement FE-5710.3 under Section

A2(b), Replacement Cost Loss Settlement – Common Construction, applicable only to screening,

such as the screening for a patio/pool enclosure, such provision contains a specific limitation of

payment as follows: “ we will pay the actual cash value at the time of loss for screening, up to

$15,000.”

19. By placing the limitation in Section A2 and not placing the limitation in Section

A1, STATE FARM clearly recognized that the Similar Construction coverage available under A1

coverage is the replacement cost as opposed to the actual cash value.

20. HAMMETT and those similarly situated have been economically damaged and

have suffered monetary losses as a result of the conduct of STATE FARM.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

21. HAMMETT brings this action pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220

on behalf of a class of all other persons and entities similarly situated. The class is defined to

include:

State Farm insureds with homeowners policies containing hurricane coverage

endorsement FE-5710.3 who purchased A1 Replacement Cost Loss Settlement –
Similar Construction coverage, who suffered losses to screening, other than
screening that covers the windows of the dwelling, and who were reimbursed for
such losses at the actual cash value rate, as opposed to the replacement cost –
similar construction value.

22. There are questions of law and fact that are common to all members of the class,

LEE & AMTZIS, P.L.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

6
which questions predominate over any question affecting only individual class members.

23. The principal common issues include the following:

a) whether STATE FARM breached its contracts with its insureds by reimbursing

for screening, other than screening that covers the windows of the dwelling, at actual cash value

rather than at replacement cost – Similar Construction value.

24. The class is comprised of all insureds who purchased homeowners policies from

STATE FARM with hurricane coverage endorsement FE-5710.3 and A1 Replacement Cost Loss

Settlement – Similar Construction coverage and sought benefits due to hurricane damage during

the effective period.

25. The amount of the replacement cost value and the actual cash value for each

homeowner who made a claim for screen damage is contained in STATE FARM’s computer

systems and on the explanation of building replacement cost benefits provided to its insureds.

26. HAMMETT’s claims are typical of the claims of all members of the class because

the claims are based on the same legal and remedial theories.

27. HAMMETT will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all class members

in the prosecution of this action and in the administration of all matters relating to the claims

stated herein.

28. HAMMETT is similarly situated with, and has suffered similar injuries as, the

members of the class that he seeks to represent.

29. HAMMETT has retained counsel experienced in class action cases and insurance

coverage litigation.

30. Neither HAMMETT, nor counsel, have any interest that may cause them to not

vigorously pursue this action.

LEE & AMTZIS, P.L.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

7
 31. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of the controversy, because:

(a) the individual class members are not all aware that they have been

wronged and are thus unable to prosecute individual actions;

(b) concentration of the litigation concerning this matter in this Court is

desirable;

(c) the claims of the representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the

members of the class;

(d) a failure of justice will result from the absence of a class action; and

(e) the class and the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of

this class action are not great.

32. The class is so numerous as to make it impracticable to join all members of the

class as plaintiffs.

33. STATE FARM has improperly reimbursed insureds at the actual cash value as

opposed to the replacement cost value for screening, other than screening that covers the

windows of the dwelling, covered under the policy and its hurricane endorsements.

34. Many class members may not even be aware of STATE FARM’s improper

reimbursement and since the depreciation amount is relatively small, it would not be practicable

to justify the expense of pursuing individual litigation. In contrast, on a class-wide basis, STATE

FARM has saved millions of dollars by improperly reimbursing the cost of screening, other than

screening that covers the windows of the dwelling, at actual cash value rates as opposed to

replacement cost rates.

AS AND FOR A FIRST

CAUSE OF ACTION

LEE & AMTZIS, P.L.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

8
 (Breach of Contract)

35. HAMMETT repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs "1" through "34" above, with the same force and effect as if set forth fully herein.

36. STATE FARM and the class entered into insurance agreements whereby STATE

FARM agreed to provide insurance coverage in accordance with the terms of the Policies and the

endorsements attached thereto.

37. The members of the class suffered damages as a result of various casualties and

suffered damages to screening, other than screening that covers the windows of the dwelling,

covered under the policies.

38. STATE FARM has breached the contract of insurance by paying actual cash value

reimbursement rates, as opposed to the required replacement cost value for screening.

39. As a result, STATE FARM has reimbursed insureds less than the required

amounts under the policies.

40. As a result of STATE FARM’s conduct, its insureds have been damaged.

41. All conditions precedent to the institution of this action have occurred or have

been otherwise waived.

AS AND FOR A SECOND

CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Judgment)

42. HAMMETT repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in

Paragraphs "1" through "34" above, with the same force and effect as if set forth fully herein.

43. As previously alleged, STATE FARM has improperly reimbursed insureds for

screening, other than screening that covers the windows of the dwelling covered under the

policies, at actual cash value rates as opposed to reimbursement costs value rates.

LEE & AMTZIS, P.L.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

9
 44. The insurance policy does not provide for STATE FARM to make payments under

coverage A1 at actual cash value.

45. HAMMETT and the class are unsure of their rights under the policy and seek a

declaration from this Court that the proper reimbursement rate is the replacement cost value

rates.

46. There is an actual controversy and HAMMETT and the class are not merely

seeking an advisory opinion.

WHEREFORE, JASON J. HAMMETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly

situated, demand the following relief:

(a) The entry of an Order certifying this matter as a class action;

(b) As to the First Cause of Action, compensatory damages;
(c) As to the Second Cause of Action, a declaration that STATE FARM is required to
reimburse its insureds at the replacement cost value rates for screening, other than screening that
covers the windows of the dwelling, under coverage A1 of hurricane coverage endorsement FE-
5710.3;
(d) Interest, attorneys' fees and costs where applicable;
(e) A trial by jury on all issues so triable; and
(f) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

LEE & AMTZIS, P.L.

Lead Counsel for Plaintiff
5550 Glades Road, Suite 401
Boca Raton, FL 33431
(561) 981-9988
(561) 981-9980 Facsimile

By:_____________________________________
ERIC LEE
Florida Bar No. 961299

WAYNE H. SCHWARTZ
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Florida Bar No. 907390

KOPELMAN & BLANKMAN, P.A.

350 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 980

LEE & AMTZIS, P.L.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

10
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 462-6855
(954) 462-6899 Facsimile

LEE & AMTZIS, P.L.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

11