Ivy & Glasford Robinson vs. SafePoint Insurance Company

Ivy & Glasford Robinson vs. SafePoint Insurance Company

The above link is a PDF containing sample case law regarding a homeowners claim. The following is an excerpt from the above case. Click the link for additional information found in the full case.

Defendant, SafePoint Insurance Company (“SafePoint”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files its Supplemental Motion to Dismiss for Fraud on the Court and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Supplemental Motion”), and in support thereof states as follows:

1. On March 13, 2017 SafePoint filed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Fraud on the Court and/or for Attorney’s Fees and Costs Incurred by Defendant (“Initial Motion”).
2. SafePoint’s Initial Motion brought to this Court’s attention the widespread and material inconsistencies in the testimony provided by Plaintiffs and their witnesses, which as a a whole strongly evinces that Plaintiffs have acted in bad faith in this litigation and have put into motion an international plan to perpetrate a fraud on both SafePoint and this Court.
3. Although SafePoint’s Initial Motion provided this Court with enough facts to require an evidentiary hearing where this Court would be able to confront Plaintiffs about their materially inconsistent testimony, SafePoint now supplements its Initial Motion with this Supplemental Motion in order to provide the Court with recent evidence discovered by SafePoint that unequivocally demonstrates that Plaintiffs have acted in bad faith throughout this litigation and have set into motion a scheme to defraud SafePoint and this Court.
4. Specifically, SafePoint has uncovered Plaintiffs’ mobile phone records that show that Plaintiffs were first contacted by All Insurance Restoration Services, Inc. (“AIRS”) on March 30, 2015, 10 days before Plaintiffs’ allegedly suffered water damage caused by a plumbing leak in the kitchen on April 9, 2015 (the date of loss). See Call Detail Records for Ivy Robinson’s mobile phone, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, see also Interpreting Call Detail Records, attached hereto Exhibit “B.”
5. In fact, Plaintiffs’ mobile phone records specifically and unequivocally demonstrate that Plaintiffs must have spoken with AIRS, and hatched this fraudulent plan, At least one week prior to allegedly suffering water damage caused by a plumbing leak in the kitchen on april 9, 2015. See Exhibit A.
6. Indeed, AIRS left voicemail messages for Ivy Robinson on March 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015, and Ivy Robinsons checked these voicemail messages on March 31, 2015. See Exhibit A. 
7. Then, Ivy Robinson Picked up calls and actually spoke with AIRS on April 1, 2015, eight days before the alleged date of loss, and again on April 13, 2015. See Exhibit A.