Poulos v Allstate Response Officers Managers Involved

CASE NO.: 11-023833 CACE (14)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDASTEVEN POULOS,CASE NO.: 11-023833 CACE (14)Plaintiff,vs.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, RMK INSURANCE GROUP, INC., JOSE KUDJA, individually, and REBECCA KUDJA, individually,

Defendants.___________________________________/PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF SERVING ANSWERS TO ALLSTATE'S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff, STEVEN POULOS (Poulos), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340, hereby serves its Answers to Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company's Fifth Set of Interrogatories.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEWE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served by e-mail via the Florida Courts eFiling Portal (pursuant to Rule 2.516, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration and Administrative Order SC13-49) upon Brett M. Carey, Esq. and Lori J. Caldwell, Esq., [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, 300 South Orange Avenue, Lincoln Plaza, Suite 1400, Orlando, FL 32802-1873; and Sean L. Collin, Esq., [email protected]; [email protected]; Lyons, Snyder & Collin, P.A., 1250 South Pine Island Road, Suite 200, Plantation, FL 33324 this __ day of July 2015.

BROAD AND CASSELCounsel for PlaintiffOne Financial Plaza100 S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 2700Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394Phone: 954-764-7060Fax: [email protected] [email protected]@broadandcassel.com

By: /s/ Christopher M. Horton Adam G. Rabinowitz Florida Bar No.: 177962Christopher M. HortonFlorida Bar No.: 91161PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO ALLSTATE'S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES

1.Please identify the officers, directors, or managers of Allstate Insurance Company who you claim knowingly condoned, ratified, or consented to "intentional misconduct" or "gross negligence," as those terms are defined in Florida Statute 768.72(2); with regard to each person identified, please describe with specificity how that person condoned, ratified, or consented to intentional misconduct or gross negligence.ANSWER: To the extent portions of this Interrogatory request Plaintiff to disclose legal analysis, Plaintiff objects on the basis of attorney-client and work product privilege. Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections, each of the following officers, directors or managers had knowledge that RMK was investigated and terminated for falsification of company documents and fraudulent underwriting and had knowledge of the sale of the RMK book of business to Plaintiff without disclosing the underlying issues within the book of business that caused the investigation and termination: Mike Sheely, Alex Shimkus, Bill Ayo, Bob Jackson, Olga Otera, Richard Cairns, and Mariano Reis. Each of these individuals had additional knowledge specific to either the investigation, termination or sale as set forth below:

(1) Mike Sheely -- First, Mr. Sheely was involved and had specific information concerning the basis for termination RMK/Kudja. Second, with knowledge of materially adverse information concerning the RMK/Kudja Book of Business (BOB), Mr. Sheely approved the sale of the BOB to the Plaintiff, Poulos. Third, Mr. Sheely was also personally approached by Plaintiff, Poulos, regarding various concerns about the BOB prior to the Plaintiffs acquisition of same. Notwithstanding specific knowledge of materially adverse information, Mr. Sheely intentionally refused to advise the Plaintiff, Poulos, of this materially adverse information concerning the BOB as to permit Poulos to make a fully informed decision before acquiring same.

(2) Sara Crowley First, Ms. Crowley was involved and had specific information concerning the investigation of RMK/Kudja. In fact, she concluded that the initial review by Joseph Cackowski showed a consistent pattern of engineering of policies and the improper behavior had serious implications. Second, Ms. Crowley knew about the termination of RMK/Kudja as a result of the investigation into RMK/Kudja. Third, Ms. Crowley had knowledge that Poulos was approved to purchase the BOB from RMK/Kudja. Despite having concerns of engineering of policies by RMK/Kudja and the serious implications thereof, Ms. Crowley did not to disclose the investigation and findings to Poulos and failed to endeavor whether other Allstate officers, directs, or managers had disclosed same.

(3) Alex Shimkus First, Mr. Shimkus was intimately involved with the investigation and termination of RMK/Kudja. Second, he later was also involved in the State of Floridas investigation of the termination of RMK/Kudja. Finally, he assisted in the determination that the details of Allstates investigation and termination should remain "confidential" as to avoid disclosure of the involuntary termination of RMK/Kudja, which was a violation of Florida law.

(4) Bill Ayo First, Mr. Ayo was involved and had specific information concerning the basis for termination RMK/Kudja. Second, with knowledge of materially adverse information concerning the BOB, Mr. Ayo approved the sale of the BOB to the Plaintiff, Poulos.

(5) Bob Jackson First, Mr. Jackson was involved and had specific information concerning the basis for termination RMK/Kudja. Second, with knowledge of materially adverse information concerning the BOB, Mr. Jackson approved the sale of the BOB to the Plaintiff, Poulos.

(6) Olga Otera, Richard Cairns and Mariano Reis All of these individuals were intimately involved with the sale of the BOB and had knowledge of the materially adverse information concerning the BOB. They also took part in extending the potential termination payment to RMK/Kudja such that Plaintiff could purchase the BOB and actively concealed from the Plaintiff, Poulos, the underlying investigation and termination.

As discovery remains open, Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Answer and assert that additional officers, directors, or managers were involved in the underlying fraud and punitive conduct.

______________________________Print Name:

STATE OF FLORIDA)) SS:COUNTY OF BROWARD)

The foregoing answers to interrogatories were acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________, 2015, by _______________________, who is personally known to me or who has presented ________________________________ as identification and who did / did not take an oath.__________________________________NOTARY PUBLIC, State of FloridaMy commission expires:

Poulos v Allstate Response Officers Managers Involved

Documents

Transcript of Poulos v Allstate Response Officers Managers Involved