SUPREME COURT LAWSUIT Edit page

$21,000 Supreme Court Lawsuit Nets Residents $25,000

Boards Vindictive Fiduciary Failure Leads to Financial Liability: Gate Destroys Car Frame  

Board member Stephanie Michel, an Insurance Adjuster, and Ely Zaken both placed blame on the resident. Meanwhile, Rick Saccullo, despite his role as president and fiduciary responsibility to mitigate legal risks, remained unhelpful in the situation.

It is important to highlight that Rick Saccullo engaged in deliberate deception, attempting to mislead the resident  into signing a release by promising to discuss reimbursement for car rental fees with the board. At that time, the resident had not yet received any compensation from the insurance company and had already incurred all expenses out of pocket.  Resident replied “why would I sign a release when I have received no compensation.”

A $21,000 Supreme Court lawsuit nets residents $25,000. The entire lawsuit centered around a sum of $3,000 and the board's refusal to engage with the residents they are meant to serve. “No Compromise” is the boards philosophy when dealing with residents. Is it a coincidence that the day before Rick Saccullo was to be deposed the insurance company presented the $25,000 offer?  This situation raises critical questions:  What board secrets was the board worried Sacccullo's deposition would reveal and will the condominium's insurance rates increase as a result? Only time will reveal the implications of this lawsuit. 

The Incident

On the evening of April 13, 2023, after a long day at work, a resident returned home and while passing through the security gate it malfunctioned and crashed down onto the car, destroying the car’s frame. The car was trapped beneath the gate and resident could not exit the car.  The security guard called Alan Rothenberg who called board member Ely Zaken, who often worked on the control panel of the gate along with the gate arm.  The resident was met with accusations from Ely Zaken, who claimed residents driving had caused the malfunction, even though Zaken was in his home during the incident. It has long been suspected Ely Zaken watches the goings on in Estates ll from the comforts of his home computer.  Due to Zaken's accusation of causing the gate malfunction resident called police to file a police report. The next day resident called Rick Saccullo, board president to tell him about the crash and to tell him Ely Zaken accused him of causing the crash. Rick's reply: “Why would Ely lie.”Despite the incident being recorded on video, which later proved resident was not at fault, the finger-pointing continued without any accountability from the board. 

The Response

Rick Saccullo instructed the resident to use their insurance to cover the repairs, etc and stated the condo would pay the deductible. Resident was told by their insurance company “If the condo has insurance go through the condo.” From that moment on Rick Saccullo abused the resident which the resident interpreted as a punishment for using the condos insurance. Instead of immediately facilitating support with the insurance company, the Resident  was left to navigate an increasingly complex insurance web alone, despite repeated pleas for assistance from management and the board. In an email from Rick Saccullo, the President of the Board, he stated, “This is a private issue between you and the condo’s insurance company.” Thus began months of frustration, confusion, and a sense that they were being hung out to dry by the board that was supposed to support them. Resident was told month after month the crash would be discussed at board meeting with no information every forthcoming. Even after the resident sent letter stating a lawsuit was inevitable, no one on the board called the resident to work it out. 

The Insurance Nightmare

Resident found themselves in a relentless back-and-forth with United States Liability Company (USLI), the condo’s insurance provider. USLI’s chaotic communication left resident anxiously awaiting resolutions that never came. For approximately 30 days, resident drove the badly damaged car while waiting for insurance company to view the damage. Eventually resident could no longer wait and brought car to body shop to proceed with repairs.  The Resident's car sat at body shop for repairs that couldn’t begin until USLI had inspected the vehicle.   What followed was sheer frustration: despite a lengthy approval process, USLI later denied the claim they initially approved, insisting they would only pay a fraction of the costs involved in fixing his car.  In attempt to mitigate costs, the resident returned the rental car and shared his wife's car for many weeks, until that arrangement became to difficult, which lead to resident paying the body shop and car rental fees themselves.  Eventually after too many negotiations resident convinced USLI to cover all repair costs however, USLI refused to cover the car rental. Board also refused to pay for the car rental which resulted in the $21,000 lawsuit. 

Adding insult to injury, the board chose to consult the condo's attorney after receiving the summons, incurring many thousands of dollars in legal fees that far exceeded the amount it would have cost to resolve the issue with the resident before the lawsuit arose. The purposeful abuse of the resident along with inappropriate expenditure of condo funds on the condo attorney is one of the many reasons the board has restricted access to the meeting minutes for residents. Upon receiving the summons, the board's only appropriate action should have been to forward it to the insurance company, which would handle the legal fees. By consulting the condo attorney and incurring legal expenses that far surpassed the cost of the car rental—after already receiving the summons—demonstrates a clear abuse of self serving  power.

The Aftermath 

The ongoing saga wasn’t merely about the damaged car— Despite providing detailed documentation and correspondence regarding the insurance claim, the board's lack of involvement left resident feeling isolated.  When resident asked for help management's reply would be to forward the request to the board. When resident asked board for help the board stated this was a private issue between resident and the condo's insurance.  Resident ended up paying $21,000. Many month's later and conversations with the insurance company USLI finally agreed to pay for the body shop repair bill but refused to pay for the car rental of a few thousand dollars. Resident asked the board to make up the difference and the board refused. Resident asked the board to create a waiver allowing resident to take the insurance money with the ability to sue the condo in small claims court. There was no response from Rick Saccullo. The board never tried to avoid the supreme court lawsuit.

Depositions

It's important to note that the residents were subjected to a lengthy deposition conducted by the condominium's insurance company, which lasted several hours. During this time, the residents faced ridiculous questions, particularly for 45 minutes regarding the specifics of the experience driving through the gate. Resident stated “I have driven home through the gate for over 40 years with no problem.”  The attorney probed into such circumstances as—inquiring if resident was late getting home, tired, or hungry— before showing a truncated video of the incident in which the gate crashed down onto the vehicle proving resident was not at fault. The video abruptly cut off, leaving out crucial context, such as Ely Zaken's actions in releasing the gate arm and his subsequent blaming the resident for the gate malfunction.

There was a brief five-minute break during which the resident lightened the mood by joking with their attorney, saying, "I've been deposed for 45 minutes and I'm still under the gate!  Are they planning to keep me here all day?" Additionally, the resident's wife was deposed, and one of the more surprising questions she faced was “How long have you been married?" Resident said at that moment she felt very confident they would recover their money.

Throughout the depositions, the residents' attorney frequently challenged the relevance of certain questions, asking, "Where are you going with these questions?" Prior to the depositions, the insurance companies attorney inquired whether the residents would be open to mediation. The residents’ attorney responded pointedly, "Unless you plan to cover the arbitration costs, why would my clients incur additional expenses for arbitration when they are already trying to recover costs for repairs, car rentals, and legal fees?" At this moment residents understood the board was intentionally misusing their power, the condo's lawyer, the insurance companies lawyer  and condo funds. All proven true when the board did what ever they had to do to prevent Rick Saccullo from being deposed.

Timeline of Events

April 13, 2023: While returning home from work, the security gate malfunctioned and crashed onto a residents car, leaving it stuck underneath. A security guard called Alan Rothenberg, who then contacted board member Ely Zakin to assist in lifting the gate. Zakin, who is not a licensed contractor but regularly performs gate repairs, accused the resident of causing the malfunction, claiming they followed another car too closely through the gate. This accusation was proven false by the video camera. Because of Zaken’s accusation the police were called to document the incident.

April 13, 7:34 PM: Resident emailed Rick Saccullo, informing him about the incident and the accusations made by Ely Zakin. Rick replied that Daniella would review the video footage.

April 14: Resident spoke with Rick Saccullo, reiterating that they did not cause the crash. Rick’’s reply:  Why Ely would lie”? Later that day, All parties viewed video footage in Daniella’s office which proved Ely did in fact lie. Resident  did not cause the malfunction. Rick reviewed the footage, admitted residents innocence and advised resident to file a claim with their insurance, stating that the condo would cover the deductible. Resident’s insurance company advised to proceed with condo insurance since the condo accepted liability. 

April 17: Resident emailed Daniella, informing her that extensive repairs to the car would require a rental for 3-4 weeks, estimating the cost at $3,000.

April 18:  Daniella sent two emails—one requesting a copy of car's title and another asking for an estimate from car dealership.

April 25: Resident emailed Daniella to please try and expedite communication with the insurance company. Daniella replied, stating she was in contact with the insurance agent and waiting for an update.

May 1:  Resident emailed Patricia from USLI to discuss missed phone communications.

May 2: Resident spoke with USLI on the phone and documented this conversation in an email. Patricia subsequently requested the type of car, VIN, and mileage via email.

May 5, 8, and 9:  Car dealership reached out to USLI, leaving messages regarding the claim.

May 10:  Resident emailed Rick and Daniella about the insurance company’s lack of response regarding the inspection of car and discussed negotiating a rental rate. Rick replied that any bills submitted would be forwarded to the insurance for review, clarifying that Estates II was no longer directly involved, as they initiated the claim.

May 10:  Resident I informed Rick and Daniella that Patricia from USLI claimed she would send someone to inspect car, but no visit ever happened. 

May 10:  Car dealership attempted to set up an inspection via email. When they received no response, they called USLI and were informed that the claim was under review.

May 10:  Resident expressed frustration to USLI about the handling of the claim, citing the lack of progress over 10 days and noted that they would soon arrange for a rental car.

May 11: Resident forwarded email correspondence to Rick Saccullo documenting the lack of inspection. Rick responded, suggesting resident was watching too much "CSI."

May 11:  USLI stated repair  shop could submit photos for review but that no rental would be approved until repairs were authorized. 

May 11:  Resident pointed out discrepancies in USLI’s previous emails regarding inspection requirements and indicated that resident would be renting a similar vehicle.

May 11:  Resident asked when inspection would take place 

May 2023: I was informed by the insurance company that they would not accept any estimates until they inspected the car.

June 2:  resident brought my car to dealership for repairs and rented a car until August 2, 2023.

June 5:  Resident emailed Daniella, emphasizing her responsibility to handle communication with the insurance company due to ongoing confusion. Daniella replied stating my email would be sent to the board for review.

June 5:  Resident sent another email to Daniella asking for assistance in contacting the insurance company regarding reimbursement for the rental.

June 5:  Daniella replied, Resident  must communicate directly with the insurance company.

June 8:  emailed Daniella to inquire if the board had discussed the gate crash during board meetings.

June 8:  Daniella responded, redirecting resident to address questions directly with the insurance company.

June 9:  forwarded  email to Patricia at USLI regarding my outstanding payment for bodywork and my rental fee.

June 13:  contacted Daniella to inform her that the body shop mentioned that the insurance company had not inspected the vehicle. I requested that she allow the body shop to proceed with the repairs.

June 14:  Daniella replied, again instructing me to contact the insurance company.

June 21:  Repair Shop informed resident that they'd heard from Miguel Abreu, the independent field adjuster, who was ready to schedule an inspection.

June 30: Field adjuster Miguel Abreu inspected the car.

July 3:  Migue Abreul inspected the car again.

July 7: Body shop received the initial estimate from the adjuster, and the vehicle went into production.

July 12:  Body shop contacted the insurance company for payment status, only to be informed that they had not received the estimate from Miguel Abreu. Body shop forwarded the estimate later that day.

July 17:  USLI stated the body shop had been told the vehicle was a total loss.

July 20:  The body shop communicated to the insurance company that they disagreed with the estimate stating that damages exceeded 75% of the vehicle's value.

July 21: Body shop received an email from the insurance company indicating disagreement with the estimate on the same grounds.

Juy 27:  Resident paid Enterprise $2,171.25 for the rental

July 27  Resident  emailed Rick Saccullo expressing that the board's actions and inactions were causing family stress and forwarded along the body shop's documentation.

July 31:  Resident sent Rick another email pleading for help with the insurance company, Stating “ why I was being treated unfairly.”  Resident received no response.

July 28:  Body Shop wrote to the insurance company outlining the entire situation.

July 31:  Resident reached out to Rick again about the insurance company, emphasizing that had the damage been minor, “I would have paid out of pocket.”

August 1:  Resident emailed Rick concerning the rental.

August 1:  Resident emailed body shop inquiring about the status of my claim.

August 1:  Communicated with Daniella regarding the insurance situation, noting the significant amount involved ($20,000).

August 2:  sent Rick the rental bill for 30 days, totaling $2,171.25.

August 2:  Rick replied that I should continue communicating directly with the insurance company.

August 2:  Enterprise processed another payment of $2,171.25 for the rental, and I arranged to return the rental car. Resident and wife shared a car while waiting for the insurance company to pay Body shop.

August 2:  Miguel Abreu submitted the claim report.

August 8:  Resident  emailed Daniella, asking if she had spoken to the condo's insurance company and expressing frustration over the handling of the case and  referenced my email to the condo president Rick Saccullo that went unanswered.

August 8:  Daniella echoed common frustrations in communicating with the insurance company and stated that Rick had said the condo would cover the deductible and additional reasonable expenses had resident used their own insurance.

August 8:  Daniella followed up with Patricia at USLI for an update regarding the club number.

August 8: I shared an emails with the body shop, indicating that I might need to pursue legal action against the condo.

August 8:  Pat contacted Estates II, stating that repairs had been completed without prior approval, asserting that the damage exceeded the vehicle's worth and should have been declared a total loss.

August 9: I emailed Daniella regarding the $10,000 offer from Pat that I had never received.

August 10:  I sent a lengthy email to Rick expressing our frustrations and seeking resolution.

August 10  Rick replied, suggesting that I should have used my own insurance and declaring he would not be engaging further on this matter.

August 11:  inquired about the outcomes of the recent board meeting concerning payments to Porsche and rental fees.

August 11:  Daniella replied that I should refer to Rick’s earlier email about dealing with the insurance company

August 11:  asked Daniella what happened to the board's involvement in the insurance negotiations.

August 17:  emailed Rick to propose that the condo cover the $6,000 to $7,000 difference in the insurance offer and the rental fee amounting to $4,500, while forwarding the body shop's communication with the insurance company.

August 17:* Rick responded, stating that the condo had not received any correspondence between me and the insurance company, reiterating that the claim was a private matter.

August 17:  The body shop contacted Pat at USLI regarding the ongoing situation.

August 18:  informed Rick that the insurance company was refusing to pay body shop, and I cited that the only remedy seemed to be pursuing legal action. I inquired whether the condo would assist in making me whole.

August 18: I received an email from Jane Burns offering $10,000 due to the car being classified as a total loss, and stated that Pat had informed body shop on July 13.

August 18:  Rick replied, asserting he was trying to be helpful and encouraging me to communicate with the insurance company.

August 18:  communicated to Rick that, as a condo resident, I expected better cooperation and assistance.

September 7:   emailed Joanne to request proof regarding the $10,000 offer made by Pat.

September 8:   again asked for confirmation of the timing and manner of the $10,000 offer.

September 11:  resident paid  $16,769.35 via American Express.

September 11: inquired with USLI about the details surrounding the timing of the insurance offer.

September1 1 For the third time, I requested proof of Pat’s offer.

September 16: A new security gate was installed.

September 16:  I forwarded an official evaluation from the dealership to USLI.

Oct 11: Insurance company offers to cover the cost of the repairs but will not cover the car rental

October 11:  Resident sent a letter to the board of managers indicating a desire to avoid legal action and requesting that the board make up the difference after the insurance company's higher offer. Resident received no response.

November 8:  There was an email exchange between resident and Rick Saccullo, in which he encouraged Resident to sign the insurance company’s release so the condo could pursue assistance with my rental fees. In response, resident questioned why I would agree to something for which I received no consideration. AND NO ONE SENT RESIDENT A RELEASE. Rick Saccullo intentionally tried to fool resident into signing something before resident received any money. 

November 14: Resident sent a final email to the board summarizing experience and expressing dissatisfaction with the treatment received. Sent demand letter stating no choice but to start a supreme court lawsuit. No response from the board.