Abbey Adams Logo

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

Archives for March 2020

by

Wrongful death — Automobile accident — Vicarious liability — Damages — Insurance — Liability limitations — Action against vehicle owner arising from fatal accident caused by permissive driver — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of vehicle owner based on determination that owner’s liability was statutorily limited to $100,000, and that vehicle owner’s insurance coverage of $250,000, which was paid by owner’s insurer toward plaintiff’s claim against driver, satisfied owner’s maximum liability — Plaintiff’s argument that a vehicle owner’s policy cannot be used to both satisfy vehicle owner’s maximum liability and count towards driver’s combined policy limits is unsupported by statute’s unambiguous language — Section 324.021(9)(b)3 limits a vehicle owner’s liability to $100,000 per person if the permissive user’s combined limits are $500,000 or more, and nothing within the statute indicates that a vehicle owner’s liability cap and permissive driver’s combined limits are mutually exclusive — There is no language excluding insurance payments under a vehicle owner’s policy from the calculation of a permissive driver’s combined policy limits — Driver had combined coverage of over $500,000 when vehicle owner’s policy under which driver was a permissive user was added to driver’s three other policies

45 Fla. L. Weekly D696a Wrongful death — Automobile accident — Vicarious liability — Damages — Insurance — Liability limitations — Action against vehicle owner arising from fatal accident caused by permissive driver — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of vehicle owner based on determination that owner’s liability was statutorily limited to Read More »

by

Torts — Automobile accident — Proposal for settlement — Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Subrogation — Case involving plaintiffs’ purchase of defendant’s earlier-served, and subsequently rejected, proposals for settlement from defendant’s bankruptcy estate in an attempt to withdraw those proposals and avoid paying attorney’s fees and costs under section 768.79 — Jurisdiction — Court rejects argument that trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine, and invaded province of bankruptcy court by determining, that bankruptcy trustee’s sale of proposals for settlement was invalid — Trial court unquestionably had subject matter jurisdiction to rule on statutory and rule-based motion for attorney’s fees and costs — Discussion of differences between subject matter and “case jurisdiction” — Trial court possessed case jurisdiction to consider the validity of plaintiffs’ withdrawal of the proposals for settlement — Trial court properly declared plaintiffs’ notice of withdrawal of proposals for settlement to be a nullity and of no force and effect — Bankruptcy trustee could only sell whatever title and rights defendant had in the proposals for settlement, which is determined by Florida law — Because defendant’s insurer assumed defense of the tort action, insurer was subrogated to any right defendant had to recover litigation costs and attorney’s fees incurred and was the real party in interest as to the proposals for settlement — Having failed to possess the equitable interest in the proposals for settlement, plaintiffs did not have the power to withdraw them — Additionally, because the proposals were open for over thirty days without acceptance or written withdrawal of the offer by defendant, any purported withdrawal of the proposals after the expiration of the thirty-day period was a legal nullity and an event not contemplated by rule or statute — Moreover, the most reasonable interpretation of withdrawal provision of section 768.79 is that the withdrawal of an offer must be made by the offeror

45 Fla. L. Weekly D686a Torts — Automobile accident — Proposal for settlement — Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Subrogation — Case involving plaintiffs’ purchase of defendant’s earlier-served, and subsequently rejected, proposals for settlement from defendant’s bankruptcy estate in an attempt to withdraw those proposals and avoid paying attorney’s fees and costs under section 768.79 Read More »

by

Workers’ compensation — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Judge of compensation claims did not err in finding that claimant was not entitled to attorney’s fees and costs as a prevailing party — Claimant did not meet burden of showing that her attorney’s efforts achieved acceptance and payment of her claims because record shows that employer/carrier never denied benefits at issue

45 Fla. L. Weekly D685a   YVETTE MORGAN, Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, and SEDGWICK CMS., Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D19-3077. March 24, 2020. On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Edward R. Almeyda, Judge. Date of Accident: July 16, 2014. Counsel: Toni L. Villaverde of Toni L. Villaverde, PLLC, Coral Read More »

by

Insurance — Property — Citizens Property Insurance Corporation — Error to enter final summary judgment in favor of Citizens where, to significant extent, Citizens’ supporting materials were improperly authenticated

45 Fla. L. Weekly D612a Insurance — Property — Citizens Property Insurance Corporation — Error to enter final summary judgment in favor of Citizens where, to significant extent, Citizens’ supporting materials were improperly authenticated ZEIDA VAZQUEZ, Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D18-2601. L.T. Case No. 17-6470. March 18, 2020. Read More »

by

Florida Bar — Rules — Temporary suspension of certain requirements governing attorney discipline, unauthorized practice of law, and lawyer advertisements in light of ongoing public health emergency

45 Fla. L. Weekly S109a Florida Bar — Rules — Temporary suspension of certain requirements governing attorney discipline, unauthorized practice of law, and lawyer advertisements in light of ongoing public health emergencyIN RE: COVID-19 EMERGENCY MEASURES RELATING TO THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC20-392. March 20, 2020. In Read More »

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.