Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

Archives for October 2016

October 14, 2016 by admin

Contracts — Liens — Appeals — Breach of contract action by subcontractor against contractor – Subcontractor is entitled to certiorari review of ruling in favor of contractor on claim to recover under lien because subcontractor might be subject to irreparable harm if it were required to wait until end of litigation to appeal issue

41 Fla. L. Weekly D2269aTop of Form Contracts — Liens — Appeals — Breach of contract action by subcontractor against contractor alleging, in first count, that contractor failed to pay subcontractor for additional work performed by subcontractor due to unexpected conditions, and against contractor and surety on lien transfer bond, in second count, for recovery Read More »

Filed Under: Articles

October 14, 2016 by admin

Illinois – Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – Negligence – Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant was negligent in performing certain repairs/upgrades on plaintiff’s truck that caused said truck to catch fire.

Negligence Blasius v. Angel Automotive, Inc., No. 15-2994 (October 12, 2016) N.D. Ind., S. Bend Div. Reversed and remanded Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant was negligent in performing certain repairs/upgrades on plaintiff’s truck that caused said truck to catch fire. While Dist. Ct. found that Read More »

Filed Under: Articles

October 14, 2016 by admin

Illinois – Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – Spoliation – In action alleging that plaintiff was injured when defective piece of scaffolding struck him on his head, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment

Spoliation Schaeffer v. Universal Scaffolding & Equipment, LLC, No. 15-2393 (October 7, 2016) S.D. Ill. Affirmed and reversed in part and remanded In action alleging that plaintiff was injured when defective piece of scaffolding struck him on his head, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment, where: (1) plaintiff failed Read More »

Filed Under: Articles

October 14, 2016 by admin

Workers’ compensation — Compensable accidents — Trip and fall — Going and coming rule — Judge of Compensation Claims properly found trip and fall in a parking lot adjacent to employer’s leased place of business did not arise out of or in the course and scope of employment

41 Fla. L. Weekly D2301aTop of Form Workers’ compensation — Compensable accidents — Trip and fall — Going and coming rule — Judge of Compensation Claims properly found trip and fall in a parking lot adjacent to employer’s leased place of business did not arise out of or in the course and scope of employment Read More »

Filed Under: Articles

October 14, 2016 by admin

Workers’ compensation — Evidence — Medical — Judge of compensation claims did not err in excluding depositions of non-authorized physicians who opined that claimant’s symptoms were caused by work-related incident where the physicians were not authorized treating physicians, independent medical examiners, or expert medical advisors

41 Fla. L. Weekly D2293aTop of Form Workers’ compensation — Evidence — Medical — Judge of compensation claims did not err in excluding depositions of non-authorized physicians who opined that claimant’s symptoms were caused by work-related incident where the physicians were not authorized treating physicians, independent medical examiners, or expert medical advisors — Opinions of Read More »

Filed Under: Articles

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — Attorney’s fees — Trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs in favor of insureds where filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute — Where insurer admitted coverage for damage to interior of home, but denied coverage for damage to roof, the dispute over cause of loss to roof was an amount of loss issue for appraisers, not a coverage issue for court — Where insurer demanded appraisal prior to filing of lawsuit by insured, and indicated that it would repair any damage awarded in appraisal, the filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute over roof damage
  • Insurance — Commercial liability — Exclusions — Assault and battery — Insurer had no duty to defend insured in action alleging injury arising out of assault and battery on insured’s premises where policy contained endorsement excluding coverage for injury arising out of or resulting from assault or battery
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Assignees — No error in finding that appraisal provision of insured’s homeowner’s policy applied to insured’s assignee and granting insurer’s motion to compel appraisal — Policy did not classify appraisal as a duty of the insured — Assignee received an assignment that entitled it to receipt of payment from insurer, and concomitant with that right was its duty to comply with the conditions of the contract that afforded it payment
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Post-loss obligations — Sworn proof of loss — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer after finding that insureds had forfeited their policy coverage for failure to provide a sworn proof of loss — Policy did not eliminate duty of insured to provide sworn proof of loss where insurer opted to repair — However, because insureds complied to some extent with policy requirements, and policy required insurer to prove it was prejudiced by insureds’ failure to provide sworn proof of loss, material issues of fact remain
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Watercraft exclusion — No error in determining that watercraft exclusion in the insureds’ homeowners’ insurance policy precluded coverage for injuries sustained by a third party in a boating accident that occurred when the insured son, who had permission to use the boat from the insured father, allowed another third party to pilot the boat while intoxicated — The only applicable exception to the watercraft exclusion unambiguously states that the watercraft exclusion does not apply if the outboard engine or motor is not owned by an insured, and the boat and engine in this case were owned by the insured father — Severability clause, which provides that the policy “applies separately to each insured,” did not render watercraft exclusion ambiguous — Exceptions to the watercraft exclusion are not dependent on the insured who seeks coverage, but on the nature of the watercraft at issue

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982