Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IN ADMIRALT Y
INTERNATIONAL MARINE
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC .,
A Florida Not For Profit Charity, CiV4ARRA
Plaintiff, :7 7
vs .
Defendants .
VERIFIED COMPLAIN T
"IMRI"), by and through its undersigned counsel and sues Defendants , SANDERS MARINE
(hereinafter "ROYAL") in personam ; and the M/V Phoenix, a 1989 29' motor vessel , in rem and
alleges :
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 2 of 27
GENERAL ALLEGATION S
1 . This is a cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction within the meaning of Rule
9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is within the subject matter jurisdiction of this
Court pursuant to Title 28 U .S .C. § 1333 . More particularly, this suit concerns casualties to a
vessel owned by Plaintiff, IMRI, and asserts alternative claims against the Defendants for breach
of the implied warranty of suitable towing vessel, breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike
performance, negligent towing, negligent salvage, and breach of a marine insurance contract .
2 . In addition, this suit involves an in rem claim against the motor vessel named
Phoenix under Rule C of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of
3 . This suit also contains claims for breach of oral contract to procure marine
insurance, negligent failure to procure marine insurance, breach of fiduciary duty to procure and
maintain marine insurance, and misrepresentation about marine insurance coverage . To the
extent that the aforementioned claims do not fall within this Court's original jurisdiction,
Plaintiff invokes this Court's supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28 U .S.C. § 1367 .
4. At all times material to this suit, Plaintiff IMRI is a Florida non-profit corporation
with a principal place of business in Broward County, Florida where it engages in receiving
5 . At all times material to this suit, Plaintiff IMRI is a qualified Internal Revenue
Service 501 C(3) charity and was and is the owner of a 1981 39' motor vessel named Nikki, which
6 . At all times material to this suit, Defendant SANDERS was and is a Florida
corporation with its principle place of business at 1100 Ponce De Leon Circle, W 109, Vero
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 3 of 27
7 . At all times material to this suit , Defendant SANDERS was and is engaged in the
8 . At all times material to this suit, Defendant SANDERS was and is the owner,
operator and/or cha rterer of the tow boat named Phoenix , which is a 1989 29' motor vessel that
provided negligent towing and /or salvage se rvices to the Plaintiffs vessel Nikki as desc ribed
9 . At all times mate rial to this suit, in rem Defendant Phoenix was and is involved in
providing negligent towing and/or salvage serv ices to the Plaintiff's vessel Nikki. Upon
information and belief, in rein Defendant Phoenix will be within the Southe rn District of Florida
during the pendency of this lawsuit and is subject to se rvice of process in this ju risdiction .
10 . At all times material to this suit, Defendant BALANCHETT was and is over 18
employee of Defendant SANDERS and the captain of the tow boat named Phoenix .
12 . At all times mate rial to this suit , Defendant BALANCHETT acted within the
13 . At all times material to this suit, Defendant SANDERS is vicariously liable for the
14 . At all times mate ri al to this suit, Defendant MCCULLEY was and is a Florida
corporation with its principal place of business at 2309 N . Old Dixie Highway, Fo rt Pierce,
Flo ri da 34946 .
15 . At all times material to this suit , Defendant MCCULLEY was and is engaged in the
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 4 of 27
16. At all times material to this suit, Defendant INAMAR was and is a Pennsylvania
corporation with its principal place of business at Two Liberty Place, 1601 Chestnut Street,
17. At all times material to this suit, Defendant INAMAR was and is engaged in the
business of underwriting marine insurance and authorized to do business in the State of Florida .
18. At all times material to this suit, Defendant INAMAR issued Policy No . HU
N00895957 002 to provide hull and P & I coverage to Plaintiff's vessel Nikki during the period
of September 19, 2004 through September 19, 2005 . Plaintiff was not given a copy of the Policy
in effect at the time of the subject loss but believes Defendant INAMAR has one in its
possession .
19. At all times material to this suit, Defendant ROYAL was and is a Florida
corporation with its principal place of business at 8300 Executive Center Drive, Suite 102,
20. At all times material to this suit, Defendant ROYAL was and is an insurance agent
and/or broker engaged in procuring marine insurance for customers such as Plaintiff IMRI .
21 . At all times material to this suit, Defendant ROYAL acted as Plaintiff IMRI'S
insurance agent and/or broker and was responsible for procuring and maintaining hull insurance
on Plaintiff IMRI'S vessels, including, but not limited to, the Nikki.
22. On December 22, 2004, the Nikki departed the Fort Pierce Inlet, heading south
23. The Nikki 's progress in the rough sea was slow and her Captain, David W . Nicoll,
decided to return to the Fort Pierce Inlet and proceed south to Ft . Lauderdale via the Intracoastal
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 5 of 27
Waterway .
24. As the vessel Nikki was turning back toward the Fort Pierce Inlet, she was hit by a
rogue wave in the aft area of the vessel and took on a substantial amount of water .
25 . The rogue wave caused the Nikki 's engine to shut down and Captain Nicoll
attempted to de-water the vessel . However, the de-watering process failed when the bilge pumps
26 . Captain Nicoll called the U .S. Coast Guard for help and the Coast Guard called
Defendant SANDERS and requested it render commercial towing assistance to the Nikki.
Defendant SANDERS did not inform the Coast Guard or Captain Nicoll on board the Nikki that
it was not readily available to send a vessel and crew out to assist the Nikki or that it would take
27 . At approximately 6 :00 a.m., December 23, 2004 after the Nikki was left drifting at
the mercy of the sea for approximately nine (9) hours, Defendant SANDERS finally arrived on
the scene with its vessel Phoenix under the command of Defendant, BALANCHETT .
28 . For approximately one hour after the Phoenix arrived on scene, Defendant
BALANCHETT questioned Captain Nicoll about Nikki 's condition prior to sending over a line to
BALANCHETT that the Nikki was swamped by a big wave ; that the Nikki had a large amount of
water in its bilge ; and that its bilge pumps were inoperable, which precluded the Nikki from de-
30. Defendants SANDERS and BALANCHETT knew that the Nikki's bilge pump s
-5-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 6 of 27
were inoperable and that she had experienced flooding and still contained large amounts of sea
water in her bilge prior to towing the Nikki to Fort Pierce Inlet .
the Nikki prior to undertaking the tow, he did not do so . Upon information and belief,
Defendants SANDERS and BALANCHETT did not put a pump on the Nikki to de-water it
because either the portable pump was inoperative, out of fuel, or Defendants SANDERS and
BALANCHETT were in fear of losing the tow should the Nikki be de-watered and able to
34. During the tow toward the Fort Pierce Inlet, Defendants SANDERS and
BALANCHETT'S inadequate line broke on numerous occasions, which delayed the Nikki 's tow
35 . During the tow, Captain Nicoll was informed by Defendant BALANCHETT that he
was up all night responding to another call for assistance before responding to the Nikki's request
36. As the Phoenix was approaching the Fort Pierce Inlet, Captain Nicoll radioed
Defendant BALANCHETT and inquired whether BALANCHETT wished to shorten the tow line
37. Defendant BALANCHETT said he was not interested in shortening the tow line an d
-6-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 7 of 27
proceeded with the Nikki in tow towards the Fo rt Pierce Inlet with an inappropriate long tow line,
a towed vessel with a large amount of sea water in her bilge, and at an excessive rate of speed .
38. While approaching the Fort Pierce Inlet, the vessel Nikki encountered rough seas
and waves that struck Nikki's stern qua rter, thereby shifting water inside the vessel that allowed
more water to enter the vessel and ultimately caused the Nikki to capsize .
39. After capsizing the Nikki, Defendants BALANCHETT and SANDERS requested
immediate assistance from Defendant MCCULLEY to salvage and /or tow the vessel Nikki to
safety.
40. Defendant MCCULLEY arrived on the scene and it and Defendants SANDERS
and control of the Nikki while attempting to provide salvage assistance to her .
the salvage operation . Specifically, the Defendants failed to quickly and efficiently right the
vessel, de-water the vessel, pickle the engines and take necessary steps to save the vessel Nikki or
preclude additional damages by the virtue of allowing the vessel to continue in her submerged
43 . Furthermore, the vessel Nikki, upon information and belief, sustained additional
damages as a result of the vessel being towed upside down in a capsized manner and not properly
righted in a timely and reasonable manner by the Defendants SANDERS, BALANCHETT and
MCCULLY .
-7-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 8 of 27
subject suit .
45 . Plaintiff, IMRI, was required to retain the law firm of Stroup & Martin, P .A . to
prosecute this suit on its behalf and is obligated to pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs for
COUNT I
PLAINTIFF IMRI'S CLAIM AGAINST INPERSONAM DEFENDANTS
SANDERS AND BALANCHETT AND IN REM DEFENDANT Phoenix FOR BREACH
OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF SUITABLE TOWING VESSE L
c . The towing vessel's crew, tackle and equipment are equal to the work to
-8-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 9 of 27
c. The Phoenix's crew, tackle and equipment were equal to the work to be
expected .
d . Failing to sho rten the tow line and/ or reduce speed while towing the Nikki
f. Failing to timely call for additional assistance and/or equipment to tow the
51 . Plaintiff IMRI'S vessel Nikki was rendered a constructive total loss as a result of
Defendants SANDERS, BALANCHETT and Phoenix 's breach of their implied warranty of
warranty of suitable towing vessel directly and proximately caused damages to Plaintiff IMRI,
which damages consist of either the market value of the Nikki or the reasonable cost of repairs for
the vessel ; sue and labor expenses ; loss of use of the Nikki; haul-out and/or storage charges for
the Nikki after the subject casualty ; su rveyor ' s expenses ; prejudgment interest ; and other los s
-9-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 10 of 27
related expenses .
b) That all persons having a claim or interest therein may be cited to appear and
c) That upon proper notice and hearing, judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff IMRI
and against the in rem Defendant Phoenix and the in personam Defendants SANDERS and
d) That the Court order the Phoenix sold at a U .S. Marshal's auction for purposes of
e) Order such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper .
COUNT II
PLAINTIFF IMRI 'S CLAIM AGAINST IN PERSONAM DEFENDANTS
SANDERS AND BALANCHETT FOR BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
WORKMANLIKE PERFORMANC E
53. Plaintiff, IMRI, re-alleges Paragraphs 1, 2, 4 through 13, 22 through 39, 44 and 45
55 . Under the general maritime law, marine contractors impliedly warrant that their
56. Defendants SANDERS and BALANCHETT impliedly warranted that they would
perform their towing and/or salvage services to Plaintiff IMRI'S vessel named Nikki in a
-10-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 11 of 27
workmanlike manner.
workmanlike performance by :
d. Failing to shorten the tow line and/or reduce speed while towing the Nikki
f. Failing to timely call for additional assistance and/or equipment to tow the
58 . Plaintiff IMRI'S vessel Nikki was rendered a constructive total loss as a result of
performance.
workmanlike performance directly and proximately caused damages to Plaintiff IMRI, which
damages consist of either the market value of the Nikki or the reasonable cost of repairs for the
vessel ; sue and labor expenses ; loss of use of the Nikki ; haul-out and/or storage charges for the
Nikki after the subject casualty ; surveyor's expenses ; prejudgment interest ; and other loss related
expenses.
demands the Honorable Court enter a judgment in its favor against Defendants SANDER S
-11-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 12 of 27
MARINE TOWING, INC . d/b/a FT. PIERCE TOWBOAT U .S . and LARRY ALLEN
prejudgment interest , costs and such further relief the Cou rt deems proper.
COUNT II I
PLAINTIFF IMRI 'S NEGLIGENT TOWING CLAIM AGAINST IN PERSONAM
DEFENDANTS SANDERS AND BALANCHETT AND IN REM DEFENDANT Phoenix
13, 22 through 39, 44 and 45 of the Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein .
reasonable care under the circumstances to tow the vessel Nikki in a safe and competent manner .
d . Failing to shorten the tow line and/or reduce speed while towing the Nikki
f. Failing to timely call for additional assistance and/or equipment to tow the
63. Plaintiff IMRI'S vessel Nikki was rendered a constructive total loss as a result of
-12-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 13 of 27
duties of care in towing the Nikki directly and proximately caused damages to Plaintiff IMRI,
which damages consist of either the market value of the Nikki or the reasonable cost of repairs for
the vessel ; sue and labor expenses ; loss of use of the Nikki ; haul-out and/or storage charges for
the Nikki after the subject casualty ; surveyor's expenses ; prejudgment interest ; and other loss
related expenses .
b) That all persons having a claim or interest therein may be cited to appear and
c) That upon proper notice and hearing, judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff IMRI
and against the in rem Defendant Phoenix and the in person am Defendants SANDERS and
d) That the Court order the Phoenix sold at a U .S. Marshal's auction for purposes of
e) Order such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper .
COUNT I V
PLAINTIFF IMRI 'S NEGLIGENT SALVAGE CLAIM AGAINS T
IN PERSONAM DEFENDANTS SANDERS, BALANCHETT AND MCCULL Y
66 . After the vessel Nikki capsized on December 23, 2004, Defendants, SANDERS ,
-13-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 14 of 27
BALANCHETT, and MCCULLEY owed a reasonable duty of care to salvage the Nikki without
reasonable duty of care to salvage the Nikki without causing more damages by :
a . Failing to take action to de-water the Nikki and right her before continuing
b . Towing the Nikki into Ft . Pierce Inlet while she was still capsized and
c . Failing to pickle the Nikki 's engine(s) and generator set and failing to take
other action to preserve and protect the Nikki once it was in port.
69. Plaintiff IMRI'S vessel Nikki was rendered a constructive total loss as a result of
Defendants SANDERS, BALANCHETT and MCCULLY 'S breach of their reasonable duties of
reasonable duties of care and gross negligence in salvaging the Nikki directly and proximately
caused additional damages to Plaintiff IMRI, which damages consist of either the market value of
the Nikki or the reasonable cost of repairs for the vessel ; sue and labor expenses ; loss of use of
the Nikki ; haul-out and/or storage charges for the Nikki after the subject casualty ; su rv eyor's
-14-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 15 of 27
MCCULLY' S gross negligence in their conduct in the salvage operation resulted in additional
damaged the Nikki beyond the scope of anticipated damages which the vessel sustained as a
INC ., demands judgment , jointly and severally, against the Defendants , SANDERS,
BALANCHETT and MCCULLY, for damages as a result of their negligent salvage, prejudgment
interest, costs and for such other and fu rther relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT V
PLAINTIFF IMRI'S BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM
AGAINST DEFENDANT INAMA R
during the period of September 19, 2004 through September 19, 2005 .
74 . The casualties involving the Nikki as described herein were covered under th e
Policy .
75 . The Nikki was rendered a constructive total loss as a result of one or more of the
76 . The damages sustained by the Nikki as described herein were insured under Policy
INAMAR.
-15-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 16 of 27
78 . Plaintiff IMRI submitted a claim to Defendant INAMAR for the constructive total
loss of the Nikki, sue and labor expenses and other covered expenses .
79 . Defendant INAMAR was obligated to pay Plaintiff IMRI for the constructive total
loss of the Nikki, sue and labor expenses and other insured expenses under the terms of Policy
82 . Plaintiff IMRI is entitled to recover its attorney's fees from Defendant INAMAR
for breach of the subject Policy pursuant to Florida Statute § 627 .428
subject Policy include the insured agreed value of the Nikki, sue and labor expenses, storage
expenses, surveyor's expenses, other loss related expenses, prejudgment interest, and attorney's
fees .
INC ., demands the Honorable Court enter a judgment in its favor against the Defendant,
compensato ry and consequential damages, prejudgment interest, atto rn ey's fees pursuant to
Flo ri da Statute § 627 .428, costs and for such other and fu rther relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
-16-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 17 of 27
COUNT V I
PLAINTIFF IMRI'S BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT CLAIM
AGAINST DEFENDANT ROYAL FOR FAILING TO PROCURE AND MAINTAIN
INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR THE M/V Nikk i
85 . At all times material hereto, Defendant ROYAL held itself out to the public as
86 . Plaintiff IMRI used Defendant ROYAL as its insurance agent and/or broker to
procure insurance coverage for its vessels for several years prior to December 2004 .
87. During the years leading up to December 2004, Defendant ROYAL developed a
special insurance agency relationship with Plaintiff IMRI, which encompassed ROYAL inquiring
about IMRI'S activities, advising IMRI about its insurance needs and obtaining coverage to
88. Prior to the casualties to the M/V Nikki in December 2004, Plaintiff IMRI orally
contracted with Defendant ROYAL to procure hull insurance for vessels donated to the Plaintiff .
N00895957 002 from Defendant INAMAR and that the Nikki was insured under said Policy .
90. Prior to the aforementioned casualties to the Nikki, Plaintiff IMRI informed
Defendant ROYAL that it was relocating the vessel from St . Augustine to Ft . Lauderdale,
Florida .
91 . Defendant ROYAL advised Plaintiff IMRI that it had notified Defendant INAMAR
about the proposed change in the Nikki 's location from St . Augustine to Ft . Lauderdale and tha t
-17-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 18 of 27
the vessel would be insured during and after its relocation to Ft . Lauderdale .
92 . Defendant INAMAR denied Plaintiff IMRI'S claims for the constructive total loss
of the Nikki, sue and labor expenses, storage charges and other losses covered under the subject
Policy.
93 . While Plaintiff IMRI contends the casualties sustained by the Nikki are covered
under the subject Policy and that Defendant INAMAR has breached said contract by failing to
pay IMRI' S claims, if the Court finds that the Policy does not cover the relevant losses, then
Defendant ROYAL breached the oral contract to procure and maintain insurance coverage for the
Nikki.
94. While Plaintiff IMRI contends the casualties sustained by the Nikki are covered
under the subject Policy and that Defendant INAMAR has breached said contract by failing to
pay IMRl'S claims, if the Court finds that the Policy does not cover the relevant losses, then
Defendant ROYAL'S breach of oral contract to procure and maintain insurance coverage for the
contract include, but are not limited to, the loss of the insured value of the Nikki, sue and labor
expenses, storage expenses, surveyor's fees, prejudgment interest on the amounts that should
have been timely paid under the relevant Policy, attorney's fees in having to file suit against
Defendant INAMAR to try and collect under the Policy, and costs .
96 . Under Florida law, Plaintiff IMRI is entitled to recover all damages causally arising
from Defendant ROYAL'S breach of oral contract and therefore Plaintiff IMRI is entitled to
recover those attorney's fees that it must expend in suing Defendant INAMAR to try and enforc e
-18-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 19 of 27
INC ., demands the Honorable Court enter a judgment in its favor against the Defendant, ROYAL
MARINE INSURANCE GROUP, INC ., and award Plaintiff compensatory and consequential
damages, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees, costs and for such other and further relief as this
COUNT VI I
PLAINTIFF IMRI 'S CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT ROYAL FOR NEGLIGENT
FAILURE TO PROCURE AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE COVERAG E
97. Plaintiff, IMRI, re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 3 through 45, 85
through 87 and 89 through 92 of the Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein .
coverage for its vessels, including the Nikki for the time period of September 19, 2004 through
99. At all times material hereto, Defendant ROYAL did not inform Plaintiff IMRI that
100 . Defendant ROYAL owed a duty to Plaintiff IMRI to use reasonable care to procure
and maintain a policy of insurance for Plaintiffs vessels, which insurance was suitable in all
respects for Plaintiff's needs and covered the donated vessels, such as the Nikki, while in
Plaintiff's ownership .
101 . While Plaintiff IMRI contends the casualties sustained by the Nikki are covered
under the subject Policy and that Defendant INAMAR has breached said contract by failing to
pay IMRI'S claims, if the Court finds that the Policy does not cover the relevant losses, the n
-19-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 20 of 27
Defendant ROYAL breached its duty to Plaintiff IMRI to use reasonable care in procuring and
maintaining marine insurance coverage for Plaintiffs vessels, including the Nikki.
102 . While Plaintiff IMRI contends the casualties sustained by the Nikki are covered
under the subject Policy and that Defendant INAMAR has breached said contract by failing to
pay IMRI'S claims, if the Court finds that the Policy does not cover the relevant losses, then
Defendant ROYAL'S negligent failure to procure and maintain insurance coverage for the Nikki
103 . Plaintiff IMRI'S damages arising from Defendant ROYAL'S negligent failure to
procure and maintain insurance coverage for the Nikki include, but are not limited to, the loss of
the insured value of the Nikki, sue and labor expenses, storage expenses, surveyor's fees,
prejudgment interest on the amounts that should have been timely paid under the relevant Policy,
attorney's fees in having to file suit against Defendant INAMAR to try and collect under the
104 . Under Florida law, Plaintiff IMRI is entitled to recover all damages causally
arising from Defendant ROYAL'S negligence and therefore Plaintiff IMRI is entitled to recover
those attorney's fees that it must expend in suing Defendant INAMAR to try and enforce the
INC., demands the Honorable Court enter a judgment in its favor against the Defendant, ROYAL
MARINE INSURANCE GROUP, INC ., and award Plaintiff compensatory and consequential
damages, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees, costs and for such other and further relief as this
-20-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 21 of 27
COUNT VII I
PLAINTIFF IMRI 'S CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT ROYAL FOR BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY DUT Y
105 . Plaintiff, IMRI, re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 3 through 45,
85 through 87 and 89 through 92 of the Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein .
106 . Plaintiff IMRI placed trust and confidence in Defendant ROYAL because of the
nature of the agent-client relationship and their belief that Defendant ROYAL held superior
knowledge, skill and judgment about insurance matters, including, but not limited to, the type of
policy that would satisfy Plaintiff's request for coverage for its vessels, including the Nikki .
107 . At all times material hereto, Defendant ROYAL had a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff
IMRI because of the inherent trust and confidence that the Plaintiff had in Defendant ROYAL as
108 . At all times material hereto, Defendant ROYAL'S fiduciary duties owed to
b. To fully and completely explain the material terms and conditions of the
c. Not to mislead the Plaintiff about the nature and scope of its insurance
appropriate coverage .
109 . While Plaintiff IMRI contends the casualties sustained by the Nikki are covered
under the subject Policy and that Defendant INAMAR has breached said contract by failing t o
-21-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 22 of 27
pay IMRI'S claims, if the Court finds that the Policy does not cover the relevant losses, the
Defendant ROYAL breached its fiduciary duties to Plaintiff IMRI by either failing to procure and
maintain the appropriate insurance coverage for the Nikki, failing to fully and completely explain
the material terms and conditions of the insurance coverage to Plaintiff IMRI, misleading
Plaintiff about the nature and scope of its insurance coverage and/or failing to advise Plaintiff
that it had not been able to procure the appropriate coverage for the Plaintiff and its vessel Nikki .
110 . While Plaintiff IMRI contends the casualties sustained by the Nikki are covered
under the subject Policy and that Defendant INAMAR has breached said contract by failing to
pay IMRI'S claims, if the Court finds that the Policy does not cover the relevant losses, the
Defendant ROYAL'S breach of its fiduciary duties directly and proximately caused Plaintiff
IMRI to suffer damages including, but not limited to, the loss of the insured value of the Nikki,
sue and labor expenses, storage expenses, surveyor's fees, prejudgment interest on the amounts
that should have been timely paid under the relevant Policy, attorney's fees in having to file suit
against Defendant INAMAR to try and collect under the Policy, and costs .
111 . Under Florida law, Plaintiff IMRI is entitled to recover all damages causally
arising from Defendant ROYAL'S breach of fiduciary duty and therefore Plaintiff IMRI is
entitled to recover those attorney's fees that it must expend in suing Defendant INAMAR to try
INC ., demands the Honorable Court enter a judgment in its favor against the Defendant, ROYAL
MARINE INSURANCE GROUP, INC ., and award Plaintiff compensatory and consequential
damages, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees, costs and for such other and further relief as thi s
-22-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 23 of 27
COUNT I X
PLAINTIFF IMRI 'S CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT ROYAL FOR
MISREPRESENTAION ABOUT INSURANCE COVERAG E
112 . Plaintiff, IMRI, re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 3 through 45,
85 through 87, 89 through 92 and 106 of the Verified Complaint as if fully set forth herein .
113 . As a professional insurance agent and/or broker, Defendant ROYAL owed a duty
to use reasonable care not to falsely represent to Plaintiff IMRI the scope of insurance coverage
on the Nikki.
114 . While Plaintiff IMRI contends the casualties sustained by the Nikki are covered
under the subject Policy and that Defendant INAMAR has breached said contract by failing to
pay IMRI'S claims, if the Court finds that the Policy does not cover the relevant losses, then
Defendant ROYAL breached its duty by misrepresented the scope and nature of insurance
115 . While Plaintiff IMRI contends the casualties sustained by the Nikki are covered
under the subject Policy and that Defendant INAMAR has breached said contract by failing to
pay IMRI'S claims, if the Court finds that the Policy does not cover the relevant losses, the
Defendant ROYAL'S misrepresentations about the scope and nature of coverage for the Nikki
directly and proximately caused Plaintiff IMRI to suffer damages including, but not limited to,
the loss of the insured value of the Nikki, sue and labor expenses, storage expenses, surveyor's
fees, prejudgment interest on the amounts that should have been timely paid under the relevant
Policy, attorney's fees in having to file suit against Defendant INAMAR to try and collect under
-23-
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 24 of 27
111 . Under Florida law, Plaintiff IMRI is entitled to recover all damages causally
arising from Defendant ROYAL'S misrepresentations and therefore Plaintiff IMRI is entitled to
recover those attorney's fees that it must expend in suing Defendant INAMAR to try and enforce
INC ., demands the Honorable Court enter a judgment in its favor against the Defendant, ROYAL
MARINE INSURANCE GROUP, INC ., and award Plaintiff compensatory and consequential
damages, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees, costs and for such other and further relief as this
By :
JAMES W . STR
Fla Bar No . 0842117
FARRIS J . MARTIN, III
Fla Bar No . 0879916
Case 0:05-cv-61364-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2005 Page 25 of 27
IN ADMIRALT Y
CASE NO. :
INTERNATIONAL MARINE
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC .,
A Florida Not For Profit Charity,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Defendants .
VERIFICATIO N
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) SS
COUNTY OF BROWARD )
2. I have read the foregoing Veri fied Complaint and know the contents thereof and
stated in the Verified Complaint are based upon reports made to me by employees and the
records of the corporation for which I have been authorized to make these representations .
Trv
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this
X
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC ., who is personally known to me and who did take an oath .
.-J-Aa_F E. So RKLE Y
Notary Public (printed )
My Commission Expires : S
S+roo~ ~► d rte ,
t l 9 cS E ~a c t , e ~~`{ \
4. L1l ~J• FL 333/ (P 08 ~i
(d) CIRCLE COUNTY WHERE ACTION AROSE : DADE, MONROE , PALM BEACH, MARTIN, ST. LUCIE, INDIAN RIVER . OKEECHOBEE HIGI1l4DS
[')
H . BASIS OF JURISDICTION iPLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONLY( III . CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN X M ONE BOX FOR PLAINTIFF
(For Diversity Cases Only) AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT I
PTF DEF PTA DE F
❑ 1 US . Government Federal Questio n Citizen of This State ❑ 1 ❑ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4
Plaintiff ( U .S . Government Not a Party ) of Business In This Stat e
VI . CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U S CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE
DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY )
LENGTH OF TRIAL
vi days estimated (for both sides to try entire case)