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 December 2019

December 20, 2019 by Jennifer Kennedy

Wrongful death — Hotels — Swimming pool — Failure to post lifeguard — Trial court correctly concluded that Florida law does not impose a legal duty on the owner or operator of a private hotel swimming pool to provide a lifeguard for the protection of its guests — Although statutes and administrative rules impose legal requirements for professional lifeguards if hired to supervise a private hotel swimming pool, they do not specify that a private hotel must hire such a lifeguard

44 Fla. L. Weekly D3005a Wrongful death — Hotels — Swimming pool — Failure to post lifeguard — Trial court correctly concluded that Florida law does not impose a legal duty on the owner or operator of a private hotel swimming pool to provide a lifeguard for the protection of its guests — Although statutes Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

December 20, 2019 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall in gym — Contracts — Exculpatory clause — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of defendant based on exculpatory clause in electronic membership agreement, which was presented to plaintiff on a computer tablet without an accompanying printed contract — Where in version of contract that was printed and placed in record, the contract had three pages; the bottom of the first page indicated that it was “Page 1 of 3” but did not reference exculpatory clause, which was in a box on the second page; and plaintiff’s signature appeared on the bottom of the first page, and plaintiff described contract language as being mostly obscured by a “pop-up” space for his signature, there remained a question of fact as to whether the electronic presentation of the contract prevented plaintiff from reading it — Further, question remained as to whether plaintiff was induced into not reading further by statements of defendant’s employee indicating that the contract consisted of financial terms and membership dates and directing the plaintiff to sign

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2991a Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall in gym — Contracts — Exculpatory clause — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of defendant based on exculpatory clause in electronic membership agreement, which was presented to plaintiff on a computer tablet without an accompanying printed contract — Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

December 20, 2019 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Collector vehicle policy — An insurer that issues a reduced premium collector vehicle policy may not limit uninsured motorist coverage under that specialty policy to accidents involving the occupancy or use of the collector vehicle

44 Fla. L. Weekly S300a Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Collector vehicle policy — An insurer that issues a reduced premium collector vehicle policy may not limit uninsured motorist coverage under that specialty policy to accidents involving the occupancy or use of the collector vehicle AMERICAN SOUTHERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. LOUIS PHILIP LENTINI, Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

December 20, 2019 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Punitive damages — Appeals — Certiorari — Order denying motion to add a claim of punitive damages to complaint is not reviewable via certiorari because such a denial can be adequately remedied on appeal

44 Fla. L. Weekly D2968a Torts — Punitive damages — Appeals — Certiorari — Order denying motion to add a claim of punitive damages to complaint is not reviewable via certiorari because such a denial can be adequately remedied on appeal HIGH FIVE PRODUCTS, INC., and DONNA SMITH, Petitioners, v. JAMES “SKIP” RIDDLE, SHERI RIDDLE, Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

December 13, 2019 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Commercial crime — Coverage — Policy covering “[l]oss resulting directly from a fraudulent instruction directing a financial institution to debit [insured’s] transfer account and transfer, pay or deliver money or securities from that account,” unambiguously covers insured’s claim for a loss of more than $1.7 million to scammers stemming from phishing scheme in which a scammer posing as an executive of insured persuaded an employee to wire money to a foreign bank — The loss involved a fraudulent instruction directing a financial institution to transfer funds and resulted directly from a fraudulent instruction as required by the policy

28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C635a Insurance — Commercial crime — Coverage — Policy covering “[l]oss resulting directly from a fraudulent instruction directing a financial institution to debit [insured’s] transfer account and transfer, pay or deliver money or securities from that account,” unambiguously covers insured’s claim for a loss of more than $1.7 million to Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • 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