Courtroom Observation Report: Analysis of Eurys Gamez v. ACE Insurance

This report details a courtroom observation of the case "Eurys Gamez v. ACE America Insurance Company" in the Southern District of Florida, a federal court within the Eleventh Circuit. The observation, conducted on July 15, 2019, focuses on a breach of contract case involving an insurance claim denial. The report provides a description of the courtroom, a summary of the proceedings including the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract due to denied insurance coverage for a stolen vessel, and the defendant's affirmative defenses of fraud and misrepresentation in the insurance application. The jury trial's outcome, where the jury found for ACE Insurance on its affirmative defense of fraud, is discussed, along with the denial of Gamez's motions. The report also includes a discussion of the legal arguments, evidence presented, and the application of Florida law. The author provides personal thoughts on the importance of full disclosure in insurance applications and the case's relevance to the course content, highlighting the implications of intentional misrepresentation. The report concludes with the jury's verdict favoring ACE Insurance and the court's ruling that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy controlled the relationship between the parties, emphasizing the significance of intentional misrepresentation to void the policy.

Courtroom Observation
Student’s Name:
Student’s ID:
Subject:

1
Description of Observation
The case based on “Eurys Gamez v. ACE America Insurance Company” was held in the court of
Southern District of Florida which is determined to be the United States District Court. It has
been observed that it is the federal United States district court in the eleventh circuit that possess
territorial jurisdiction over the southern part of the state of Florida. The court aims to defend and
enforce the laws of the United States of America by the trial of criminal cases brought by the
Federal government https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/. The courtroom has been observed by me on
15th July 2019, where I found that the court also defends and enforce the collection of debts and
the defense and prosecution of civil cases owed to the federal government which are
governmentally uncollectible. It is considered to be the major federal law enforcement court of
the district.
It has been noticed that the jurisdiction of the court consist of nine countries of St. Lucie, Palm
Beach, Okeechobee, Monroe, Miami-Dade, Martin, Indian River, Highlands and Broward.
Followed by the five divisions the courthouse are located in West Palm Beach, Miami, Key
West, Fort Pierce and Fort Lauderdale. In the Southern District of Florida, the U.S. Attorney
represents the United States in criminal and civil litigation into the court. Within the courtroom,
it has also been observed that the chief judges possess administrative responsibilities based on
the rules and regulations of the district court (Southern District Of Florida | United States District
Court). The amendment of local rules that came into effect on 3rd December 2018 was also
observed within the courtroom such there is no need for a certificate of service for parties who
serve electronically. It is seen that there is also no need for fax number within the signature block
for a filing party.
Summary of proceeding
The case related to “Eurys Gamez v. ACE America Insurance Company”, is about all about
breach of contract where Eurys Gamez the plaintiff who lives in Florida was allegedly held for
breach of contract by the defendant ACE American Insurance Company with its standard place
of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Eurys Gamez V. ACE America Insurance Company).
It indicates that the two parties within the case were the plaintiff Eury’s Gamez and defendant
ACE American Insurance Company. The case proceeded to a jury trial that arose out of the

2
refusal of insurance coverage by the defendant ACE American Insurance Company for the loss
of the vessel (Eggers, MacDonald and Picken 209). In the Southern District of Florida for the
eleventh circuit, the plaintiff, Eurys Gamez filed suit based on diversity jurisdiction and seeking
fees for attorney and damages.
As per the complaint, on 24th November 2007, Alfredo Hassun, cousin of Eurys Gamez loaned
Gamez's 32-foot Glasstream fishing yacht to Alexis Suarez, a recent acquaintance for a fishing
trip. However, Suarez has disappeared mysteriously along with the vessel and was never
observed by anyone (Šírová 197). At the time of the effective policy period, the whole vessel
consisting of multiple individual possessions of Gamez along with its trailer, was stolen. Thus,
the defendant denied paying the Plaintiff for the loss of the trailer as well as the vessel, that
apparently violated the terms and conditions of the contract. According to the threshold matter,
the insurance policy consists of an integration clause indicating that the policy possesses all the
agreements among Gamez and Ace. Hence, as per the policy, the coverage will be voided if any
material fact is fraudulently concealed or misrepresented by Gamez. It was argued by the
defendant that it was not needed to pay on the claims for three basic reasons (Pacella 261).
Firstly, the plaintiff was unsuccessful in serving relevant notice of the loss to the defendants as
needed as per the contract. Secondly, the plaintiff misrepresented the material facts fraudulently
at the time of inquiry to defraud the defendant. Thirdly, the plaintiff was making use of the
vessel as a part of illegal and deceitful acts when the vessel was stolen.
Generally the two parties were arguing over breach of contract where ACE Insurance defended
the action by pleading various affirmative defenses involving its assertion of fraud within the
application of the policy. In the application, Gamez stated that he was the owner of the vessel,
while as per the evidence Hussan was the true owner and Gamez was a mere surrogate. In the
application, he also revealed that he would be the primary operator, whereas the actual primary
operator of the vessel was Hassun. Thus, in total, there possess three affirmative defenses that
were finally submitted to the jury (Liu 15). The first was Ace Insurance’s claim of intentional
fraud or misrepresentations in the application. Second is the failure by Gamez to provide
appropriate notice regarding the loss. The third is the defense of the illegal utilization of the
vessel during the loss.

3
Based on this argument, the plaintiff proceeds for judgement under Rule 59(a) for a new trial and
under Rule 50(b) as a matter of law. As per Rule 50(b), plaintiff asks the court to set aside the
judgement of the jury as to the confirmatory defense of ACE American Insurance Company, but
to enable jury’s judgement to stand as to plaintiff’s claim. Whereas, in the alternative, the
plaintiff asks the court to entirely set aside the judgement of the jury and order a new trial as per
Rule 59(a) that comprise of more lenient standard as compared to Rule 50(a) (Manworren,
Letwat and Daily 257). However, the jury that Gamez agrees was instructed systematically,
found for ACE Insurance on its affirmative defense and for Gamez on his breach of contract
claim that Gamez had misrepresented the material facts fraudulently on his insurance
application.
During the observation it has been noticed that the parties were discussing regarding the
evidence where, Gamez argued that there was no relevant evidence at trial that helps the
reasonable jury to consider which hazard led to the loss of the vessel. As per the plaintiff, any
fraudulent misrepresentation only violates the insurance policy if it increased the risk under the
control of Hassun or Gamez (Marson, Ferris and Nicholson 51). Therefore, a reasonable jury
could not find that Hassun or Gamez had increased the risk without determining which hazard
resulted in the loss of the vessel. Furthermore, Gamez also argues that even though the hazard is
classified as a missing vessel, none of the misrepresentations by Hassun's or Gamez's could have
increased that risk. Plaintiff also argued that the jury was invited by ACE Insurance counsel for
applying an inappropriate legal standard by disregarding the law (Sidak 1809). However, Gamez
failed to pursue this argument at the time of post-trial motion as he neither establishes that he
objected during the trial nor specifies when the counsel of ACE America allegedly did so.
Gamez challenged the appeal such as the statement, concealment, omission and
misrepresentation are material or intentional to the risk assumed or acceptance of the hazard by
the insured. Meanwhile, Ace also argues that the court must not follow King in this particular
case as it might breach Florida Statute Section 627.409(1).
On the other hand, based on the violation or breach of contract by insured, Gamez argues that the
statute applies to the insurance policy of wet marine. Based on this argument ACE Insurance
responded that the innocent misstatements of the fact within an application are not considered to
be material to the hazard that does not afford a defense to the insurance company (McKenzie

4
51). At the trial, it has been testified by an underwriter that the misrepresentations within the
application were material to the amount of the premium to be charged and with the acceptance of
the risk without any contradiction by any opposing witness.
Summary of outcome
At the time of proceedings, the jury found that although Gamez had proven his claim, still he
fails to recover as ACE Insurance had created as a confirmatory defense by stating that Gamez
has misrepresented the material facts intentionally into his insurance application (Hay 36).
Gamez’s motions were denied by the jury as there was no sufficient evidence trial for a
reasonable jury to conclude that Gamez’s misrepresentations impacted the ability of ACE
Insurance to assess the hazard and the Florida law does not need that the misrepresentations
increase the hazard. The jury also found that the evidence presented to the court against Gamez
by ACE America such as the vessel location, prior owned vessels, primary operator and
ownership proved that Hassun and Gamez made the misrepresentations intentionally into the
insurance application (Rub 1141). Based on the three affirmative defenses, the jury stated that
the defenses did not meet the illegal use of the defense after finding for Ace on the issue of fraud
within the application. Within the eleventh circuit court, the insured statutes did not exclude the
parties from entering into the agreement where the insurance contract ensures the insured of
certain basic prevention. Based on the outcome of the proceedings, it has been noticed that in the
Ace insurance policy, the unambiguous language would get cancelled due to intentional
misrepresentation by Gamez.
As a result, it became easier for the reasonable jury to infer that these fraudulent
misrepresentations influenced the liability of ACE Insurance Company to pay a definite amount
of money. The court made a verdict that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy
controlled the relationship among the insured and insurer (Coyle 152). Thus, followed by the
terms and conditions the parties had contracted out of the ubberrimae fidei standard. Hence, it is
needed to show an intentional misrepresentation to void the policy. Therefore, the jury ordered
that the alternative motion for a new trial and the matter of law is denied. Thus, on 17th
September 2013, the verdict was made in favor of ACE Insurance after Gamez's post-trial
motions were denied and based on the factual finding related to the insurance contract (Surahyo
1). Hence, the eleventh circuit made a verdict that the parties associated with the marine

5
insurance contract may contract-out of federal law or state followed by an insurance contract. It
is because there was nothing void as to statutory law or public policy regarding such a contract.
Personal thoughts
Based on the proceeding, I acknowledged that while renewing an existing policy or seeking new
insurance, it is significant for the insured or proposer to reveal any significant information that
may create an impact on the company. Failure to do this may allow the company to repudiate
liability and render the insurance void from inception (Pigni 9). Signing the form does not
restrict the company to accept the risk or the applicant to buy the insurance. However, this form
is determined to be the basis of the contract that must be issued by a policy. I believe that the
proceeding of the case is related to the content of the course as it is based on criminal law and the
case is related to breach of contract which is also regarded as a criminal activity. It can be seen
that from the beginning of the policy period all coverages will be voided if a person intentionally
misrepresents or conceal any circumstance or material fact to the application of such insurance or
contract of insurance before or after the loss.
Moreover, I observed that fact that in its motion, it was not contended by ACE that Gamez made
a fraudulent misrepresentations into its insurance application. Thus, the summary judgment for
ACE motion must be denied as the insurance policy demonstrates the fact that the coverage will
be voided due to the intentional misrepresentation of the insured (Yimer 329). As per my
understanding, the ACE Insurance could have charged a higher premium than would have helped
the single-experienced owner-operator to keep track of a yacht within his driveway. From this
case, I have learned that a violation or breach by the application, endorsement, and contract of
insurance, provision of transportation or wet marine insurance policy does not void the contract
or policy. It does not possess a defense to a loss unless the violation or breach increased the risk
by any means under the control of the insured. However, I have realized that Gamez could have
won this case as the risk that resulted into the loss was unknown, and ACE Insurance was unable
to prove that the risk increased under the control of the insured.
I gathered knowledge that the fraud made in the application creates an impact on the ability of
ACE Insurance to pay a definite amount of money. It is because not every misstatement are
considered as intentional misrepresentations; not every contract prohibits the intentional acts of
concealment and is regarded as fraud (Misenti 131). It may also influence the Insurance

6
company to make decisions about whether to accept the risk or not. On the other hand, the issue
creates an impact on Gamez to prove that there does not exist any real issue of material fact
(Reddy and Canavan 97). Therefore, I come to know that misrepresentations play a significant
role in an insurance application as it is determined to be a standard that affects the liability of the
company that will create an impact on my future while making decisions before signing a
contract. I also acknowledged that the summary based on the judgement is relevant if the
answers, depositions and pleadings to interrogations present that there does not possess any real
issue to any material fact where the moving party is authorized to a verdict as a matter of law. I
gained an understanding that summary judgment is adequate in certain situations that that would
be helpful for me in the future to make an appropriate judgement for the moving and non-moving
party.

7
References
"Eurys Gamez V. ACE America Insurance Company." United States Courts, 2019,
https://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/eurys-gamez-v-ace-america-insurance-
company.
"Southern District Of Florida | United States District Court." Flsd.Uscourts.Gov, 2019,
https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/.
Coyle, John F. "Choice-of-law clauses in US bond indentures." Capital Markets Law
Journal 13.2 (2018): 152-167.
Eggers, Peter MacDonald, and Simon Picken. "Law reform." Good Faith and Insurance
Contracts. Informa Law from Routledge, 2017. 209-228.
Hay, David B., and Martina Proctor. "Concept maps which visualise the artifice of teaching
sequence: Cognition, linguistic and problem-based views on a common teaching
problem." Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal 7.1 (2015):
36-55.
Liu, Chelsea, et al. "Corporate litigation and changes in CEO reputation: Guidance from US
Federal Court lawsuits." Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics 12.1 (2016):
15-34.
Manworren, Nathan, Joshua Letwat, and Olivia Daily. "Why you should care about the Target
data breach." Business Horizons 59.3 (2016): 257-266.
Marson, James, Katy Ferris, and Alex Nicholson. "Irreconcilable Differences? The Road Traffic
Act and the European Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives." The Journal of Business
Law 1 (2017): 51-70.
McKenzie, Evan. "Rethinking Residential Private Government in the US: Recent Trends in
Practices and Policy." Private Communities and Urban Governance. Springer, Cham,
2016. 51-76.

8
Misenti, Nicholas C. "Should an Agent Be Liable for Ordinary Negligence When Liability Is
Transferred to the Principal?." Southern Journal of Business and Ethics 10 (2018): 131-
153.
Pacella, Jennifer M. "Silencing Whistleblowers by Contract." American Business Law
Journal 55.2 (2018): 261-313.
Pigni, Federico, et al. "Targeting Target with a 100 million dollar data breach." Journal of
Information Technology Teaching Cases 8.1 (2018): 9-23.
Reddy, Jo, and Rick Canavan. "Making and Cancelling a Credit Agreement." Q&A Commercial
Law. Routledge, 2015. 97-108.
Rub, Guy A. "Copyright Survives: Rethinking the Copyright-Contract Conflict." Virginia Law
Review (2017): 1141-1245.
Sidak, J. Gregory. "Injunctive Relief and the FRAND Commitment in the United
States." Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law: Antitrust and Patents 1
(2017): 1809-1870.
Šírová, Lucia. "Misrepresentation under English Contract Law and Its Comparison to Slovak
Contract Law." International and Comparative Law Review 16.2 (2016): 197-208.
Surahyo, Akhtar. "Construction Contracts and Law Basics." Understanding Construction
Contracts. Springer, Cham, 2018. 1-16.
Yimer, Gebreyesus Abegaz. "Standards for Provisional and Protective Measures in Civil
Litigation: What Ethiopian Courts may Learn from US Courts." African Journal of
International and Comparative Law 24.3 (2016): 329-345.