44 Fla. L. Weekly D785a Insurance — Discovery — Experts — Financial relationships — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law in compelling defendant to disclose documents concerning financial arrangements between defendant’s attorney, insurance company, and retained expert witness — Question certified: Whether the analysis and decision in Worley v. Central […]
Archives for March 2019
Torts — Legal malpractice — Standing — Insurance carrier — Question certified: Whether an insurer has standing to maintain a malpractice action against counsel hired to represent the insured where the insurer has a duty to defend
44 Fla. L. Weekly D766a Torts — Legal malpractice — Standing — Insurance carrier — Question certified: Whether an insurer has standing to maintain a malpractice action against counsel hired to represent the insured where the insurer has a duty to defend ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. KUBICKI DRAPER, LLP, a law firm, Appellee. 4th […]
Torts — Premises liability — Business invitee — Action arising out of plaintiff tripping over raised manhole cover and sustaining head trauma on defendant’s property — Error to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant — Dangerousness of manhole remained an issue of fact that was not conclusively determined where plaintiff’s experts supported claim that manhole was dangerous because the manhole was raised and elevated higher than permitted by code, and the excessive elevation rendered it a fall hazard — Defendant’s evidence showing compliance with building codes is not conclusive on the issue of whether defendant maintained a dangerous condition on the premises — Defendant failed to establish whether manhole presented an open and obvious danger where plaintiff was elderly, incident occurred at night, the lighting was poor, the manhole was in a travel lane in front of the store, store was busy, and cars were coming and going with their headlights on — Whether customers heading to their vehicles should have expected to sidestep a raised manhole in every instance, or whether the store should have anticipated that its customers were likely to trip over the manhole despite its obviousness is a disputed issue of fact
44 Fla. L. Weekly D765a Torts — Premises liability — Business invitee — Action arising out of plaintiff tripping over raised manhole cover and sustaining head trauma on defendant’s property — Error to grant summary judgment in favor of defendant — Dangerousness of manhole remained an issue of fact that was not conclusively determined where […]
Torts — Automobile accident — Argument — Where defendant had obtained orders in limine prohibiting reference to traffic citation and contents of accident report, it was error to permit argument which improperly suggested that investigating trooper did not issue a citation to defendant — Error was not shown by defendant to be harmless — New trial required
44 Fla. L. Weekly D752a Torts — Automobile accident — Argument — Where defendant had obtained orders in limine prohibiting reference to traffic citation and contents of accident report, it was error to permit argument which improperly suggested that investigating trooper did not issue a citation to defendant — Error was not shown by defendant […]
Workers’ compensation — Medical benefits — Causation — Break in causal chain — Exposure — Action arising out of employer/carrier’s termination of medical treatment fifteen years after parties had entered into a broad stipulation in which the employer/carrier accepted compensability of work exposure to contaminants which caused breathing problems in employees of the building, and accepted liability for “building related illness associated with indoor air quality problems” — Judge of compensation claims’ denial of employee’s claims for medical care and costs was not supported by competent substantial evidence where, although physician who conducted employer/carrier’s independent medical evaluation testified that employee had been misdiagnosed, IME physician declined to testify that “building related illness” was not the major contributing cause of employee’s need for ongoing treatment, and no evidence was introduced by employer/carrier that employee’s symptoms changed since the date of the joint stipulation or that unrelated conditions or symptoms had arisen since exposure was accepted as compensable
44 Fla. L. Weekly D733a Workers’ compensation — Medical benefits — Causation — Break in causal chain — Exposure — Action arising out of employer/carrier’s termination of medical treatment fifteen years after parties had entered into a broad stipulation in which the employer/carrier accepted compensability of work exposure to contaminants which caused breathing problems in […]