Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY v. H&M SALES & SERVICE, INC.

ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
6:14-cv-00033 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
Middle District of Florida
Date Filed: 
Jan 8 2014

FACTS
5. The plaintiffs insured, Pandey Hotel Corporation, LLC ("Pandey") is the owner
and operator of the "Doubletree by Hilton Cocoa Beach Oceanfront" ("Doubletree") Hotel
located at 2080 N. Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931.
6. At all times material hereto, the plaintiff provided insurance coverage to Pandey
pursuant to policy number D37402096011, with effective dates from October 23,2012 through
October 23,2013 (the "insurance policy").
7. Defendant, H&M Sales & Service, Inc. ("H&M") is a Florida company which
performs repairs, service, maintenance, inspection and other related services for HVAC
equipment.
8. On June 6, 2011 Pandey purchased a Friedrich model PDE12R35ER, serial
number AKFM00814 HVAC unit for use in guest rooms at the Doubletree Hotel ("the HVAC
unit").
9. The HVAC unit was installed in Room 226 at the Doubletree on July 28, 2011.
10. On August 1, 2011 the HVAC unit malfunctioned and failed to perform as
intended.
11. H&M was designated by the manufacturer of the HVAC unit as an authorized
warranty service company for the HVAC unit, and following the malfunction that occurred on
August 1,2011, H&M removed the HVAC unit from the Doubletree Hotel for service work.
12. H&M returned the HVAC unit to the Doubletree Hotel on or about August 11,
2011.
13. The HVAC unit was not placed back into service when it was returned by H&M;
instead, the HVAC unit remained in a storage unit at the hotel.
14. On December 13, 2012, the HVAC unit was put into service in Room 332 at the
Doubletree Hotel because the existing unit in that room was removed for service and repairs.
15. Between August 11, 2011 and December 13, 2012, the HVAC unit was not
modified, altered, operated, changed or otherwise used by the Doubletree Hotel.
16. On January 17,2013 the HVAC unit malfunctioned, causing a fire at the
Doubletree Hotel resulting in significant damage to the Doubletree Hotel.
17. The fire caused damages to Pandey beyond the HVAC unit.
18. At the time of the fire, the HVAC unit had been in active use for approximately
thirty-four (34) days.
19. As a result of the fire, Pandey submitted claims to the plaintiff for damages to the
Doubletree Hotel, personal property, extra expenses and business losses pursuant to the
insurance policy issued by the plaintiff to Pandey.
20. The plaintiff has made payments to Pandey in the amount of $485,160.89 for
losses covered under the insurance policy.
21. As a result of the payments made by the plaintiff to Pandey, the plaintiff is
legally, equitably and contractually subrogated to the claims of Pandey against all responsible
third parties, including the defendant herein.

COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
22. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 21 as though fully set forth herein.
23. The fire which occurred on January 17,2013 at the Doubletree Hotel was caused
by the carelessness, negligence and lack of due care on the part of defendant H&M in that it:
(a) Failed to repair properly the HVAC unit;
(b) Failed to service properly the HVAC unit;
(c) Failed to reassemble properly the HVAC unit;
(d) Failed to inspect properly the HVAC unit;
(e) Failed to test properly the HVAC unit;
(f) Failed to follow the HVAC unit manufacturer's instructions and service
manuals;
(g) Failed to return the HVAC unit to Pandey in a condition that was safe and
which would avoid a risk of fire;
(h) Failed to handle properly the HVAC unit;
(i) Altered internal components of the HVAC unit;
0) Failed to prevent internal damage to components of the HVAC unit; and
(k) Failed to train its employees, representatives and servicemen in the proper
service, maintenance, testing and inspection if HVAC units.
24. The carelessness, negligence and lack of due care on the part of H&M caused the
damages sustained by the Doubletree Hotel and the plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests judgment in its favor in an amount in excess of the
jurisdictional limit of this Court together with interest, costs and such other relief as the Court
deems appropriate.

COUNT II
BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF WORKMANLIKE SERVICES
25. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set forth herein.
26. Pandey and the Doubletree Hotel were the direct and intended third-party
beneficiaries of the agreement between the manufacturer of the HVAC unit and H&M with
respect to service and repair work to be performed by H&M on the HVAC unit while it was still
under the manufacturer's warranty.
27. Pursuant to that agreement, the work performed by H&M was intended to directly
benefit Pandey and the Doubletree Hotel in exchange for consideration provided by the HVAC
manufacturer to H&M.
28. H&M's contract with the manufacturer of the HVAC unit required it to perform
duties on behalf of the manufacturer and for the benefit of Pandey and the Doubletree Hotel and
deliver services in a good and
30. The breach of implied warranty of workmanlike service by H&M Sales and
Service caused the damages sustained by the Doubletree Hotel and the plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests judgment in its favor in an amount in excess of the
jurisdictional limit of this Court together with interest, costs and such other relief as the Court
deems appropriate.

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.