William Kratochvil - Vernis & Bowling

William Kratochvil, Esq.
Managing Attorney
Vernis & Bowling of Southwest Florida, P.A. 2369 West First Street Fort Myers, FL 33901
Phone: (239) 334-3035
Email: WKratochvil@Florida-Law.com
Fax: (239) 334-7702
Website: www.national-law.com
V-Card Email LinkedIn

Verdicts and Dispositions

Florida National Insurance Solutions Inc., v. Welcome Home Development Corp.
Philip Fairman and William Kratochvil (Ft. Myers, FL) (Litigation) obtained a complete Defense Verdict in Lee County, Florida after a two-day trial where a tenant’s damaged office contents were disposed of by the landlord in the aftermath of Hurricane Ian. Florida National Insurance Solutions was the plaintiff and tenant in the office building owed by the landlord and defendant Welcome Home Development Corporation.

On September 28, 2022, Hurricane Ian caused significant damage to the building owed by the defendant Welcome Home Development Corporation. The Hurricane destroyed Plaintiff’s second floor office with rain driven water when the roof over the plaintiff’s rented office was partially torn off. Shortly thereafter, Welcome Home began the remediation process and instructed its contractor to salvage any items from its tenant’s offices which were dry and mold free. After finding nothing salvageable in the Florida National’s office and after assuming Florida National had abandoned the items in their office when they failed to contact Welcome Home, the contractor pursuant to Welcome Home’s instructions collected all the contents in Florida National’s destroyed office and placed them on the curb for disposal with debris from the other offices.

The plaintiff in its lawsuit asserted a defacto data breach claim for its lost business and financial records. The plaintiff also alleged that a large volume customer stopped doing business with Florida National after being informed that Florida National’s business records which contained the client’s proprietary information records were possibly compromised when those records were placed on the curb for disposal during the cleanup process from the hurricane.

At trial, the court granted a Directed Verdict as to two of the counts alleged in the Amended Complaint. On the remaining counts, Plaintiff asked the jury to return a verdict of $1.3 million. After deliberating for approximately thirty minutes, the jury returned a complete Defense Verdict on the remaining counts and awarded the plaintiff zero dollars.

Proposals for Settlement were filed on behalf of the Defendants, as well as Motions to Tax Fees and Costs.
Kacey Chiddister vs. Florida Department of Children and Families
William Kratochvil and Joseph Bootka (Ft. Myers, FL) (Negligence/Appeal) prevailed at the Sixth District Court of Appeals, affirming the granting of the Final Summary Judgment for the Defendant Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF).

The case focused on a negligence cause of action against DCF with a non-relative caregiver who had a previous criminal history, diagnoses of bi-polar disorder and anxiety, and an extensive history of substance abuse of heroin, cocaine, and opiates. The non-relative caregiver, while under the supervision and non-delegable duty of DCF, had a legal prescription of methadone from a treatment clinic, Operation PAR. The non-relative caregiver then gives birth to a biological child who is born addicted to methadone, automatically triggering a mandatory reporting by the hospital. The biological child is returned to the mother after a DCF investigation with low risk assessed, who is still a non-relative caregiver of the child under the supervision of DCF. At all times the non-relative caregiver (and mother) passed all random drug tests, showing only the legally prescribed methadone, while having DCF and its contracted agencies continue with announced and unannounced visits in her home.

Thirteen months later, the biological toddler drinks a near fatal dose of methadone the mother left unattended briefly, suffering catastrophic damages. The children are removed by DCF, and the mother is sentenced to four years in prison.

The case was hotly contested on various issues, including proximate cause and the rights of a parent to raise their biological children, with Plaintiff assembling a team of liability and catastrophic damage experts. The court ordered Non-Binding Arbitration award was for $25 million against DCF. A Trial De Novo was filed by DCF, while the well-connected Plaintiff’s law firm pushed a $20 million claims bill through the Florida Legislature, supported by several members.

DCF’s Final Motion for Summary Judgment was heard by Judge Fuller and was granted on multiple issues, including lack of foreseeability, compliance with statutory guidelines, and proximate cause. The ruling was appealed to the Sixth DCA Court of Appeals.

Oral Argument was held on March 12, 2024, at Barry Law School in front of the law school students. The judicial panel consisted of Presiding Judge Mary Nardella, Judge Joshua Mize, and Judge Paetra Brownlee. On March 19, 2024, the Sixth DCA Court of Appeals per curium affirmed the granting of the Final Summary Judgment in favor of DCF in Lee County, Florida. The $20 million claims bill was abandoned.
Florida Department of Children and Families v. Kacey Chiddister, as father and natural guardian of C.H.
William Kratochvil and Joseph Bootka (Fort Myers, Florida) (Governmental Law) obtained Final Summary Judgment for Defendant Florida Department of Children and Families, an agency of the State of Florida, against Plaintiff Kacey Chiddister, as father and natural guardian of C.H., a minor, in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in Lee County Florida before Judge Joseph C. Fuller.

The cause of action arose from an incident that occurred over one year and one month after C.H. was born, when C.H. ingested his mother’s, A.H., legal prescription of methadone. C.H. ingesting the methadone resulted in C.H. overdosing and being placed in a medically induced coma. After awaking from the medically induced coma C.H. had difficulties seeing, breathing, and with mobility. Additionally, C.H. suffered severe cognitive injuries. Plaintiff then filed a suit against the Florida Department of Children and Families. Plaintiff alleged that the Florida Department of Children and Families had a non-delegable duty to prevent C.H. from suffering any injuries because the Florida Department of Children and Families were conducting home visits due to A.H. being in the middle of the adoption process of a minor who was in the dependency system. Plaintiff furthered alleged that the Florida Department of Children and Families put C.H. in a foreseeable zone of risk because the Florida Department of Children and Families did not remove C.H. from A.H.’s care when C.H. was born addicted to methadone and opiates. Additionally, Plaintiff alleged that the Florida Department of Children and Families put C.H. in a foreseeable zone of risk because A.H. was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder; had a criminal history, including charges for fraud and using a false identification; had a substance abuse history including but not limited to, cocaine, pain pills, Xanax, and heroin; and was currently receiving methadone treatment from Operation PAR, Inc.

Pursuant to Florida Statute § 39.302(1) “[t]he department [of Children and Families] shall conduct a child protective investigation of each report of institutional child abuse, abandonment, or neglect. Discovery revealed that the Florida Department of Children and Families thoroughly investigated every abuse report received regarding C.H. and the other minor child A.H. was adopting. After the investigations there was never any findings of abuse or findings that A.H. was abusing illicit drugs or her legal prescription of methadone.

After nonbinding arbitration Plaintiff was awarded $25,000,000.00 in damages. Shortly thereafter, Vernis & Bowling filed a trial de novo order and set a hearing for their Motion for Summary Judgment.

At the hearing, defense counsel argued and Judge Joseph C. Fuller agreed that the Florida Department of Children and Families does not have the same duty of care towards biological children who are not in the dependency system as they do towards foster children; that the Florida Department of Children and Families only duty was to investigate abuse allegations; that the Florida Department of Children and Families did not have a duty of care towards C.H. because the Florida Department of Children and Families did not put C.H. in a foreseeable zone of risk; that there was no proximate cause between the Florida Department of Children and Families actions and C.H.’s injuries; and that the Florida Department of Children and Families did not have probable cause to remove C.H. from his biological mother, A.H., until C.H. overdosed on his mother’s legal prescription of methadone.
Ft. Myers, FL voluntary dismissals
Terrence Lavy, William Kratochvil, Andrew Hocott and Nicolas Umana (Ft. Myers, FL) (Voluntary Dismissals). Over the summer of 2022, the Fort Myers, FL office has had several successes wherein Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their actions rather than face arbitration and trial. These include:
1. SFR a/a/o Swain v. USAA. (Lee County) This was a late-reported Hurricane Irma claim not reported until after the death of the insureds. SFR utilized Elite Claims to assert a demand to replace the roof for $143,000. USAA’s investigation supported the denial based on the engineer finding no storm damage. Our investigation revealed significant issues with the assignment of benefits as it was not signed by the insureds or the administrators of the estates. William Kratochvil obtained a decision in favor of defendant at nonbinding arbitration. However, Plaintiff filed for trial de novo but as the case headed toward trial, SFR filed a voluntary dismissal without payment.
2. Mila v. United Property & Casualty. (Collier County) This claim related to an alleged plumbing leak wherein United opened coverage for cabinet damage but Plaintiff sought full kitchen remodel for $40,000.00 based on an estimate from JD Restorations. Andrew Hocott took Plaintiffs deposition which demonstrated the lack of support for the claim. We also obtained a general contractor reinspection which showed United’s presuit payment exceeded the actual cost to repair (as well as the needless dryout cavity drilling). Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with no payment.
3. Duarte v. GeoVera. (Lee County) This was a Hurricane Irma suit. Plaintiff reported the claim promptly. Investigation revealed the interior to be a shambles, but the roof looked good. GeoVera opened coverage with a minimal payment made. However, there were serious questions related to the use and occupancy of the property. Plaintiff’s repair estimate from Maximum Recovery Consultants was $44,000.00. We also learned Plaintiff lost the property in foreclosure. After pressing these issues with a Motion to Dismiss, including the potential of a FS 57.105 motion for sanctions, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without payment.
4. Connor v. USAA. (Lee County) This was a Hurricane Eta claim seeking a roof replacement with DuraLoc Roofing for $86,000.00. Nicolas Umana deposed the Plaintiffs on the case highlighting the existence of a prior Hurricane Irma claim for the same property and the lack of evidence of repairs. Plaintiffs attempted to pass the issue off at deposition, claiming a lack of memory. However, when pressed to produce discovery, counsel realized that her clients were not forthcoming with information. USAA settled the matter for nuisance value prior to the non-binding arbitration. Plaintiff has a companion case which should resolve inexpensively because of the resolution of the Eta claim.
5. Roman v. Family Security Insurance. (Lee County) This was a claim for roof replacement following Hurricane Sally (but alleged not to have been caused by Sally) instigated by Apex Roofing. Apex estimated $38,000.00 to replace the roof. Our research showed that the shingle roof had damage due to Hurricane Irma, but the claim was not reported until well after the reporting deadline making another date of loss necessary. Apex tarped the roof in the exact same area where the Irma damage existed. Terrence Lavy deposed the insureds and their father, but they were incredible and could not verify repair of the pre-existing damage to the property. After the depositions, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with no payment.
6. Martinez v. United Property & Casualty. (Charlotte County) This actually involved two claims and lawsuits, each supported by Pelican Property Solutions. The first was a claim for cast iron drain line backup with damages estimated at $190,000.00. The second was a late-reported Hurricane Irma claim initially assigned to another defense firm with damages estimated at $73,000.00. We immediately researched to find significant issues with respect to insurable interests, prejudice to investigations of both claims and a lack of evidence to support either claim. Terrence Lavy deposed the Plaintiffs and her representatives to nail down these issues. Counsel came away convinced that there was no hope for either cause. With expired Proposals for Settlement on both cases and exposure to fees, we convinced Plaintiff to walk away from both cases dismissing them with prejudice in return for client agreement to forego fees and costs. (After the resolution, the very happy client advised that predecessor counsel on the Irma matter was recommending payment on the claim.)
7. Ospina v. Citizens. (Lee County) This is a late reported claim for roof replacement with a July 3, 2018 date of loss at Plaintiff’s rental property. The claim for the 20 year old shingle roof replacement was $26,000.00 supported by Epic Roofing. Research of historic photos demonstrated that the damage currently being claimed was in fact the result of Hurricane Irma. Terrence Lavy deposed the Plaintiff to verify each photo of the property and stress the issue that the claimed date of loss was incorrect and obtained admissions that there had been no repairs after Irma. Any attempt to retroactively change the date of loss to Irma would be barred by the statutory 3 year reporting deadline. Plaintiff was offered a $500 Proposal for Settlement, but did not accept within the statutory timeframe. At Plaintiff’s request, Citizens agreed to extend the proposal, which Plaintiff accepted.
Island Tower v. Citizens Property Insurance
Terrence L. Lavy and William Kratochvil (Ft. Myers, FL) (First Party Property) obtained a defense award in non-binding arbitration in Island Tower v. Citizens. Hurricane Irma made landfall as a Category 3 storm on Marco Island, FL. Island Tower is a six-floor commercial condominium with a window-wall design and the insured was under a wind-only policy. Plaintiff’s claim featured roof and window damage with resulting water penetration throughout the structure. The claim was timely reported, but upon investigation, it was determined that observed leaks were due to poor maintenance rather than storm damage. Although there was interior water damage, no storm-created opening was observed. Plaintiff had the roof resurfaced, calling it a temporary repair. Citizens denied the claim.

During the litigation, Plaintiff retained engineers and contractors to contradict the investigation. At arbitration, it initially sought $4.8 million, plus entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs. We took these experts to task for faults in their evaluation of the property. We showed that plaintiff’s engineering opinions were not creditable because they did not perform adequate testing. Most compelling was that Plaintiffs’ damages assessments were grossly overstated. When this was proved at the arbitration, Plaintiff was permitted to submit a revised estimate. In response, we showed the arbitrator how, while the revised result was a lower total, the contractor actually increased its measurements and increased its unit pricing by 20% and more to maintain the maximum possible claim amount. The most egregious points were that: window pricing was doubled and while roof pricing increased 20%, scopes of work related to the roof were added. Finding in Citizens favor, the arbitrator opined that the contractor “would have to be significantly rehabilitated to convince me of the accuracy of their report(s).”

Since the arbitration was not binding, plaintiff submitted a motion for trial de novo. However, shortly afterward, the case settled for less than 3% of the original arbitration submission, including fees and costs.

Areas Of Practice

American with Disability Act Claims (A.D.A)
Automobile Liability (PIP/PD/BI/UM)
Construction and Construction Defect Litigation
Employment Law/Employment Litigation
First and Third Party Property and Casualty Claims
Hurricane Claims
Labor and Employment Law
Liability Defense
Negligent Security
PIP/Personal Injury Protection Litigation
Premises Liability
SIU/Suspicious & Fraudulent Claims
Wrongful Death

Bar & Court Admission

Florida Bar
United States District Court for the Middle District Of Florida

Education

Graduate:
Levin College of Law at the University of Florida, 2000 with honors
Undergraduate:
University of Florida, 1997 with honors

Memberships

Lee County Bar Association
Previous service on the Board Of Directors for The YMCA Of Lee County

AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated by Martindale-Hubbell

William Kratochvil was born in South Bend, Indiana, but grew up splitting time in Spartanburg, South Carolina and Laconia, New Hampshire. He enlisted in the United States Marine Corps from 1990-1994, serving on the Presidential Guard Detail for President George Herbert Walker Bush, then in the infantry before receiving his Honorable Discharge. In 1997, he completed his undergraduate degree from the University of Florida, with honors, then attended the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida. He received his Juris Doctor degree in 2000, with honors.

After graduating from the University of Florida, William moved to Fort Myers, Florida, where he began his career working as an insurance defense lawyer. He eventually became the managing partner at the firm of George, Hartz, and Lundeen in Fort Myers, working on all aspects of insurance defense cases and taking many to successful trial results. William has also specialized in S.I.U/Fraud as well as civil rights defense cases.

William joins Vernis & Bowling of Southwest Florida, P.A. to focus his civil trial practice in all areas of automobile negligence, premises liability, products liability, negligent security, employment law, civil rights litigation, construction litigation, first/third party claims and liability defense.

William is a member of the Florida Bar and is also admitted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

When not working, William enjoys all aspects of outdoor life with his two children to include camping, hiking, boating, and fishing.

Footer