44 Fla. L. Weekly D2277a Paternity — Child custody modification — Jurisdiction — Where Florida was child’s home state when father filed petition to modify child custody, Florida court had jurisdiction to rule on father’s petitions after mother had moved to Maryland with child and child had resided in Maryland for six months — Father’s Read More »
Archives for September 2019
Dissolution of marriage — Child custody — Jurisdiction — Trial court correctly determined that it had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination under section 61.514 based on its findings that Florida was the children’s “home state” when husband initiated custody proceedings and that children’s absence from state was temporary — However, upon learning of temporary child custody order in Massachusetts, trial court erred in finding it unnecessary to contact the Massachusetts court to determine whether Massachusetts would be a more appropriate forum to resolve the custody issues as required by Section 61.517(4) — Remand for trial court to communicate with Massachusetts court in accordance with statute
44 Fla. L. Weekly D2310f Dissolution of marriage — Child custody — Jurisdiction — Trial court correctly determined that it had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination under section 61.514 based on its findings that Florida was the children’s “home state” when husband initiated custody proceedings and that children’s absence from state was temporary Read More »
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Emergency medical condition — Healthcare providers, as assignees of insureds’ personal injury protection benefits, filed state court action alleging automobile insurance company’s practice of relying on negative emergency medical condition determinations from non-treating healthcare providers to limit coverage to $2,500 violates Florida Motor Vehicle No — Fault Act which allows only treating providers to make negative EMC determinations — Insurer filed interlocutory appeal after removal and district court granted providers’ motion to certify injunction class, but denied their motion to certify damages class
28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C303a Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Emergency medical condition — Healthcare providers, as assignees of insureds’ personal injury protection benefits, filed state court action alleging automobile insurance company’s practice of relying on negative emergency medical condition determinations from non-treating healthcare providers to limit coverage to $2,500 violates Read More »
Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall on wet floor and “wet floor” sign — Trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking plaintiff’s late-disclosed and purported expert witness on liability — Motion was granted without prejudice to providing case law on necessity of liability expert, and defendant did not file additional case law or justification for untimely disclosure
44 Fla. L. Weekly D2247a Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall on wet floor and “wet floor” sign — Trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking plaintiff’s late-disclosed and purported expert witness on liability — Motion was granted without prejudice to providing case law on necessity of liability expert, and defendant Read More »
Torts — Premises liability — Disabled persons — Evidence — Building codes — Accessibility — Action claiming that curb in parking lot over which plaintiff tripped constituted an impediment to plaintiff’s access to defendant businesses from the handicapped parking spaces, and that defendants’ failure to provide a cut in the curb violated defendants’ duty of care to handicapped patrons — Trial court erred in excluding plaintiff’s expert testimony which opined that the parking lot where the injury occurred did not comply with the Florida Accessibility Code, and granting defendants’ motion for directed verdict — Error stemmed from trial court’s attempt to apply a legal distinction between building codes that serve to foster “access” versus those that serve to advance “safety” — Statutes identified by trial court do not purport to create such a distinction and, even insofar as certain parts of the building code appear to primarily address access requirements for the disabled, it does not follow that those same provisions do not also promote safety for the disabled — By applying an overly circumscribed view of the Florida Accessibility Code, trial court effectively stymied proper consideration of the issue of whether plaintiff was owed a legal duty
44 Fla. L. Weekly D2318b Torts — Premises liability — Disabled persons — Evidence — Building codes — Accessibility — Action claiming that curb in parking lot over which plaintiff tripped constituted an impediment to plaintiff’s access to defendant businesses from the handicapped parking spaces, and that defendants’ failure to provide a cut in the Read More »