The newest improvement within the Tower Hill lawsuit towards Florida roofer Ricky McGraw and his affiliated entities is a major 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 yr in Replace on Tower Hill Lawsuit Towards Florida Roofer Ricky McGraw.
Tower Hill tried to bundle the claims of 5 separate insurance coverage corporations right into a single lawsuit, however the court docket discovered this method improper. The choose dominated that every insurer’s claims are unbiased and should be filed individually. Consequently, Tower Hill should now sever the case into 5 distinct lawsuits, every with its personal criticism and submitting charges. Whereas this ruling doesn’t deal with the deserves of Tower Hill’s allegations, it does impose important logistical and monetary burdens on the plaintiffs, doubtlessly weakening their total litigation technique.
Past procedural points, the court docket additionally discovered substantive flaws in Tower Hill’s third amended criticism. Florida follows a fact-pleading commonplace, that means plaintiffs should allege particular particulars supporting every reason behind motion somewhat than counting on broad accusations. The court docket dominated that Tower Hill failed to fulfill this requirement, notably in its claims underneath 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 court docket’s principal criticisms was that Tower Hill did not specify important particulars concerning 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 dearth of specificity undermined Tower Hill’s capability to determine the required parts for fraud and RICO violations.
The insurance coverage fraud claims have been additionally dismissed as a result of Florida legislation requires a legal 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 court docket 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 advantage. Allegations are one factor, and proof is one thing solely 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 circumstances 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 enable events to lump collectively claims with out cautious consideration to procedural guidelines. For Florida roofers, public adjusters, and attorneys, this case stays one to look at, as its consequence 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 have the ability to efficiently refile its claims in a method that satisfies the court docket’s necessities. If historical past is any information, this case is much from over, and its eventual decision might have lasting results on Florida’s insurance coverage and development 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 effectively hung.”
– Proverb
1 Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co. v. SFR Companies, No. 2020-CA-000409 (Fla. Cir. Ct. – Martin Mar. 26, 2025).
