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 August 2020

August 14, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Contractors — Coverage — Construction defects — Declaratory judgment — Issue preclusion — Insurer that issued contractors policy of insurance to subcontractor appealed both the final judgment entered in favor of plaintiff homeowner and the district court’s order denying insurer’s motion in limine, which sought to bar homeowner as assignee of contractor from presenting evidence of when damages to home manifested based on doctrine of issue preclusion — When determining the preclusive effect of an earlier judgment rendered by a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction, federal common law adopts the rules of issue preclusion applied by the State in which the rendering court sits — District court was required to apply Alabama’s rules of issue preclusion to determine the preclusive effect of a judgment entered by a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction on a nonparty to the earlier federal action — District court applied incorrect legal standard in determining whether homeowner and homeowner as assignee of contractor were in privity in prior declaratory judgment action where court applied federal rules of nonparty issue preclusion in determining preclusive effect of prior declaratory judgment in which the federal court exercised diversity jurisdiction — Because the district court failed to apply Alabama’s rule of issue preclusion, specifically the application of privity to justify nonparty issue preclusion, and instead applied a federal rule of issue preclusion that is not substantively similar to Alabama’s rule on nonparty issue preclusion, the court abused its discretion when it denied insurer’s motion in limine — Final judgment in favor of plaintiff must be vacated and case remanded for district court to apply Alabama’s rules of issue preclusion to determine issue of privity in first instance

28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C1604a Insurance — Contractors — Coverage — Construction defects — Declaratory judgment — Issue preclusion — Insurer that issued contractors policy of insurance to subcontractor appealed both the final judgment entered in favor of plaintiff homeowner and the district court’s order denying insurer’s motion in limine, which sought to bar Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

August 14, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Contracts — Arbitration — Contracts of minors — Release and waiver of liability containing arbitration agreement which was fraudulently executed by minor in order to enter trampoline facility is enforceable — Minor cannot use infancy defense to avoid a contract where minor procured the contract by fraud — Defendant facility had no duty to investigate to discover fraud — Trial court erred in finding that release and waiver was unconscionable and unenforceable and in denying motion to compel arbitration

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1911a Torts — Contracts — Arbitration — Contracts of minors — Release and waiver of liability containing arbitration agreement which was fraudulently executed by minor in order to enter trampoline facility is enforceable — Minor cannot use infancy defense to avoid a contract where minor procured the contract by fraud — Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

August 14, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy

Limitation of actions — Homeowners association’s action to foreclose lien for unpaid assessments — Error to enter summary judgment for defendants on basis of statute of limitations defense where statute of limitations defense was not raised in defendants’ pleadings, but was first raised in motion for summary judgment — Statute of limitations defense is one of enumerated affirmative defenses under rule 1.110(d), which must be affirmatively set forth in a pleading or it is deemed waived

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1882a Limitation of actions — Homeowners association’s action to foreclose lien for unpaid assessments — Error to enter summary judgment for defendants on basis of statute of limitations defense where statute of limitations defense was not raised in defendants’ pleadings, but was first raised in motion for summary judgment — Statute Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

August 14, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Professional liability — Bad faith — Legal malpractice — Bad faith action against liability insurer consolidated with legal malpractice action against counsel retained by insurer in underlying medical malpractice case, alleging that but for counsel’s offer to arbitrate, the case against the insured would have settled for policy limits — Trial court did not err in submitting the issue of causation to the jury in bad faith action against insurer where insured claimed that excess judgment resulted from insurer’s alleged bad faith in offering arbitration which precluded settlement from happening, and insurer contended that it was insured’s refusal to turn over his financial records which prevented settlement and led to offer of arbitration — Because issue of what caused insurer’s damages was in dispute, whether insurer’s bad faith caused the excess judgment was a question for the jury — No error in submitting the issue of damages to the jury where, although the damages insured sought in bad faith action was the excess judgment that resulted from arbitration, the jury had to decide what portion of any damages insurer was responsible for after trial court granted insured’s request to consolidate the bad faith and legal malpractice actions — Even if it was error to submit issue of damages to jury, error was harmless where jury never reached the issue of damages given its determination that insurer did not act in bad faith and that counsel was not negligent — Evidence — Routine practice — Trial court did not err in refusing to admit testimony that the standard practice of plaintiff’s counsel’s firm in underlying medical malpractice action was to accept policy limit settlement offers in medical malpractice cases when a defendant refuses to provide financial information — Proposed testimony did not fall within section 90.406 — Even if exclusion of testimony was in error, any error was harmless — No abuse of discretion in admitting plaintiff’s counsel’s fee agreement which contained a waiver of plaintiff’s rights because it was relevant to plaintiff’s counsel’s financial interest and because it did not constitute a needless waste of time — Furthermore, because the argument raised on appeal with respect to the admission of the fee agreement was not contemporaneously raised when insured’s objection was made, it was not preserved — No abuse of discretion in admitting testimony about Board of Medicine proceedings related to complaint filed against insured as a result of the incident which was the subject of medical malpractice action against insured and doctor’s testimony about how egregious she found insured’s actions or inactions to be given that the strength of plaintiff’s case against insured had to be evaluated by jury in determining the issues of bad faith and legal malpractice — Even if admission of evidence concerning Board’s proceeding was erroneous, any error was harmless as insured’s negligence in medical malpractice case was undisputed — No error in admitting evidence regarding a separate medical malpractice case involving insured’s counsel in which punitive damages were awarded where the potential for punitive damages was a disputed issue and factor that led to the offer of arbitration, and case was the basis for counsel’s assessment of the case and the advice given to insured — Trial court did not err in directing verdict for insurer and instructing jury that insurer had no duty to investigate prior to the filing of plaintiff’s notice of intent to initiate a medical malpractice action where nothing in liability insurance agreement created a duty to investigate a potential claim — Moreover, insured failed to prove that insurer violated its fiduciary obligation to protect insured from judgment exceeding the limits of the policy by failing to investigate notice of the incident — No merit to argument that cumulative effect of trial court’s errors warrants a new trial — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — No error in awarding attorney’s fees to counsel and firm pursuant to section 768.79 despite fact that settlement offer failed to apportion the amount of the settlement offer attributable to each offeror — Because complaint only pled a theory of vicarious liability against the firm, the proposal fell within rule 1.442(c)(4) which does not require the offer to differentiate between tortfeasors where one is alleged to be vicariously liable

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1887a Insurance — Professional liability — Bad faith — Legal malpractice — Bad faith action against liability insurer consolidated with legal malpractice action against counsel retained by insurer in underlying medical malpractice case, alleging that but for counsel’s offer to arbitrate, the case against the insured would have settled for policy Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

August 7, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy

Attorney’s fees — Trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding section 57.105 fees — Portion of award representing fees incurred for litigating amount of fees reversed

45 Fla. L. Weekly D1849a Attorney’s fees — Trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding section 57.105 fees — Portion of award representing fees incurred for litigating amount of fees reversed THE SILVER LAW GROUP, P.A., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. PAUL BATES, et al., Appellees/Cross-Appellants. 3rd District. Case No. 3D19-933. L.T. Case No. 14-866-P. August Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

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