By Florida Daily Investigations
Digging deeper into our last news story concerning the drama unfolding between Tower Hill, SFR Services, Ricky McGraw, and the State of Florida in the Rookery case, it is clear there is a tangled web ensnaring these parties.
For possibly the first time outside of a bad faith lawsuit, the veil insurance companies use to hide claim notes, estimates, and additional documentation may be lifted. The Appellate Court has relinquished jurisdiction in the underlying civil property damage case so that SFR can conduct unfettered discovery. Tower Hill’s legal team orchestrated a calculated scheme, amending their lawsuit against SFR an astonishing three times —having to change their story from one of deceitful kickbacks and bribery— after it was proven they had no evidence of the allegations. As the plot continues to unfold, it seems ripped from the script of a legal thriller and the suspense is building with SFR’s latest discovery requests. With time, the truth will come to light on how far both Tower Hill and their attorneys went to win a lawsuit and ultimately secure criminal charges against McGraw.
In the Rookery criminal case, the purported victim, Tower Hill, has continuously filed motions to obstruct McGraw’s access to discovery. Numerous legal experts have remarked that it is highly unusual for a third party or ‘victim’ to intervene between the State and a defendant, prompting the question: what is Tower Hill so concerned about revealing?
Even more startling is that one of Tower Hill’s attorneys declared that even if documents were exculpatory, they would still prioritize their work product privilege over McGraw’s constitutional rights. This obstruction severely impacts McGraw’s ability to mount a robust defense. How can justice prevail when an insurance company seeks to suppress evidence and places its business interests above an individual’s freedom?
Tower Hill and two of their attorneys, Michael Monteverde and Kali Wechsler, are no strangers to SFR and McGraw. They have spent four long years trying to pin RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) and FDUPTA (Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices ) charges against the contractor. With the Rookery criminal case progressing, the true nature of Tower Hill’s motives and the extent of their document concealment is being exposed. After Monteverde stated multiple times on the record that he would produce the special investigative claim files in the RICO case, he backtracked, stating his client never gave him explicit authority to do so. Tower Hill and their attorneys were financially sanctioned during a motion to compel hearing and now are left standing on their last leg trying to keep their internal files private.
This ongoing battle is lifting the veil on records normally protected by “claim file” work product and privilege. One can only wonder if Tower Hill and Monteverde are regretting their decision to file an enormous lawsuit spanning 360 property damage cases. The moment of truth is near. Who hid the estimates? Tower Hill, or their counsel, Michael Monteverde? Who will turn on who?
Tower Hill isn’t the only entity entangled in this legal labyrinth. Michael Monteverde has also been at the forefront of the crusade against SFR and McGraw as counsel for American Capital Insurance. On behalf of AMCAP, he filed a similar RICO suit, which was dismissed voluntarily within a year. However, this litigious barrage hasn’t gone unchallenged. SFR and McGraw have countered with a Malicious Prosecution case against Monteverde and his firm, questioning the legitimacy of their actions and information. If the Tower Hill suit isn’t successful, it can almost be guaranteed that Monteverde will have another malicious prosecution lawsuit against his firm.
In another astounding twist, Michael Monteverde injected himself into a lawsuit with SFR and Lisa Miller, representing her pro bono. Miller, an insurance company lobbyist, is no stranger to government officials and has been on a multi-year campaign to destroy SFR’s business. The pattern of lawsuits and the personal connections with Monteverde raise suspicions of a vendetta against McGraw. McGraw himself has suggested that personal animosity is driving these legal attacks, especially considering Monteverde’s inclusion of his brother and wife in the amended lawsuits. Despite the mounting pressure, McGraw remains resolute in his determination to defend himself and his company against what he perceives as an unjust onslaught by the insurance industry.
As this convoluted drama continues to unfold, the question remains: Who will ultimately be held accountable for this tangled web of deceit and manipulation? Only time will tell as the legal battle rages on, with each side vying for justice and vindication in a story that seems more like a Hollywood blockbuster than a real-life courtroom drama. Stay tuned for further updates on this gripping saga.
Author
