The newest growth within the Tower Hill lawsuit towards Florida roofer Ricky McGraw and his affiliated entities is a big one. The Circuit Courtroom of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in Martin County, Florida, has dismissed Tower Hill’s third amended criticism, citing procedural and substantive deficiencies. 1 This ruling represents one other twist in a authorized battle that has already garnered appreciable consideration inside Florida’s insurance coverage, roofing, and restoration industries. I wrote about this case and the one-hundred-page criticism final 12 months in Replace on Tower Hill Lawsuit In opposition to Florida Roofer Ricky McGraw.
Tower Hill tried to bundle the claims of 5 separate insurance coverage corporations right into a single lawsuit, however the courtroom discovered this strategy improper. The choose dominated that every insurer’s claims are impartial and should be filed individually. In consequence, Tower Hill should now sever the case into 5 distinct lawsuits, every with its personal criticism and submitting charges. Whereas this ruling doesn’t handle the deserves of Tower Hill’s allegations, it does impose important logistical and monetary burdens on the plaintiffs, probably weakening their general litigation technique.
Past procedural points, the courtroom additionally discovered substantive flaws in Tower Hill’s third amended criticism. Florida follows a fact-pleading customary, that means plaintiffs should allege particular particulars supporting every reason for motion fairly than counting on broad accusations. The courtroom dominated that Tower Hill failed to fulfill this requirement, significantly in its claims below Florida’s Misleading and Unfair Commerce Practices Act (FDUTPA), the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, and customary legislation fraud.
One of many courtroom’s important criticisms was that Tower Hill did not specify important particulars in regards to the allegedly fraudulent insurance coverage claims. The criticism referenced 215 separate claims however didn’t make clear which insurer dealt with every declare, the quantities concerned, whether or not they have been paid or litigated, or how they have been allegedly fraudulent. The shortage of specificity undermined Tower Hill’s means to determine the required components for fraud and RICO violations.
The insurance coverage fraud claims have been additionally dismissed as a result of Florida legislation requires a prison adjudication of guilt earlier than an insurer can sue for insurance coverage fraud. Tower Hill’s criticism didn’t allege that any of the defendants had been criminally convicted of insurance coverage fraud, making these claims legally inadequate. The courtroom has given Tower Hill twenty days to amend its criticism if it could appropriate these deficiencies.
This ruling doesn’t clear Ricky McGraw and his associates of wrongdoing, nor does it counsel that Tower Hill’s allegations lack benefit. Allegations are one factor, and proof is one thing fully totally different. Nonetheless, it does spotlight the challenges insurance coverage corporations face when pursuing large-scale fraud claims. The requirement to sever the lawsuit into 5 separate instances provides complexity and value, whereas the necessity for higher factual specificity forces Tower Hill to current a extra detailed and substantiated argument if it hopes to prevail.
The implications of this ruling prolong past this specific case. It serves as a reminder that courts is not going to permit events to lump collectively claims with out cautious consideration to procedural guidelines. For Florida roofers, public adjusters, and attorneys, this case stays one to observe, as its end result might affect future disputes between insurers and contractors over post-storm claims.
As this authorized battle continues, it stays to be seen whether or not Tower Hill will be capable of efficiently refile its claims in a manner that satisfies the courtroom’s necessities. If historical past is any information, this case is way from over, and its eventual decision might have lasting results on Florida’s insurance coverage and building industries.
The attorneys representing either side are glorious. I’ll present any important updates as this case strikes alongside.
Thought For The Day
“A lawsuit is sort of a pig; it’s no good till it’s nicely hung.”
– Proverb
1 Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co. v. SFR Providers, No. 2020-CA-000409 (Fla. Cir. Ct. – Martin Mar. 26, 2025).