50 Fla. L. Weekly D2278b HENRY VEGA, Appellant, v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2024-1397. October 22, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jeffrey R. Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-17-007442. Counsel: Melissa A. Giasi of Giasi Law, P.A., Tampa, for appellant. Maureen G. […]
Articles
Insurance — Homeowners — All-risks policy — Roof — Coverage — Directed verdict — Trial court erred by granting insurer’s motions for directed verdict based on conclusion that insurer had paid the actual cash value of the loss as required by policy in the amount of the only actual cash value estimate, and that no further payment was required because no additional work was performed or expenses incurred — Trial court erred in finding that insureds’ estimate was not an ACV estimate because it included costs for matching roof tiles, costs incidental to the repair and construction process, and costs for compliance with the building code’s 25% rule — Because policy at issue contains ordinance and law coverage which required insurer to cover costs incurred as a result of any ordinance that requires them to replace “the portion of the undamaged part of a covered building,” and there was evidence presented that building code required full roof replacement, trial court should have accepted insureds’ estimate as an ACV estimate — Parties’ disputes regarding scope of home damage, percentage of the roof that was damaged, and the cost to repair the damages were factual disputes that should have been submitted to the jury — Trial court erred in finding that, once insurer paid ACV for the loss, less the deductible, it was not required to make any further payments because the insureds did not begin to replace their roof before filing suit — Where an insurer denies coverage entirely, neither the policy nor section 627.7011 prevents an insured from seeking damages for breach of contract — Court rejects argument that, in order to recover for roof replacement, insured must first pay for the full roof replacement and provide a copy of their payment to insurer — Trial court erred in finding that insurer had satisfied its obligations under policy because insureds did not provide insurer with acceptable estimate — Because policy did not require insureds to provide an ACV estimate and insured undisputedly provided insurer with an estimate for repairs, insureds satisfied their obligations prior to filing suit
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2307a CLIFTON WESTON and VALONA WESTON, Appellants, v. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2024-1340. October 24, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Alicia Polk, Judge. Counsel: Barbara M. Hernando, Dean Makris and Gabriel F. Torre of Makris & Mullinax, P.A., Tampa, for […]
Torts — Automobile accident — Damages — Future medical expenses — Evidence — Expert — Treating physician — Trial court erred by allowing treating physician to offer his detailed opinion regarding plaintiff’s future medical expenses where, although physician’s witness disclosure referenced costs and future medical care, physician was not disclosed as a retained expert and plaintiff had failed to respond to expert discovery regarding treating physician — Treating physician’s opinions as to plaintiff’s future medical treatment and costs, including opinions based on his review of plaintiff’s medical records from other providers, exceeded the scope of a fact witness treating physician and crossed the line into expert testimony — Error in admitting evidence was not harmless — Fact that treating physician only transcribed his opinions concerning future treatment costs two days before he testified does not excuse the nondisclosure — Assuming treating physician truly developed these opinions in the course of treatment as he testified, then plaintiff had every opportunity to ensure that physician’s opinions were contained in medical records or otherwise properly disclosed — Court rejects plaintiff’s argument that opinion was properly admitted because defendant had opportunity to depose physician regarding his opinions on future medical care, but failed to do so — Based on the records disclosed, there was no reason for defendant to believe that treating physician would take the stand prepared to offer detailed projection of plaintiff’s future treatment costs — Remand for new trial
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2282d KRISTOPHER RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. DAERI TENERY, Appellee. 6th District. Case No. 6D2023-2853. L.T. Case No. 2018-CA-013196-O. October 21, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Vincent Falcone, III, Judge. Counsel: Kevin D. Franz, of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Boca Raton, and Jennifer A. Karr, of Boyd & Jenerette, […]
Torts — Automobile accident — Ride-share company — Vicarious liability — Trial court properly granted summary judgment on claim against transportation network company for vicarious liability because driver qualified as an independent contractor at time of accident under section 627.748(9) of TNC statute — Statute provides that a TNC driver is an independent contractor and not an employee if the TNC does not restrict the driver from engaging in any other occupation or business, and this condition was met — TNC statute governed, even though statute was not in effect at time the driver first became a ride-share driver, because cause of action accrued on date of accident, and statute reflected law of Florida on that date — Negligent hiring and retention — Plaintiff cannot survive a motion for summary judgment on claim against TNC for negligent hiring and retention of driver because evidence regarding passenger complaints against driver and driver’s citations for driving violations would not meet the burden of proof at trial sufficient to survive a directed verdict, or create an issue of fact under any reasonable construction of TNC’s duty to a third party — Defendant ride-share company did not violate provisions of TNC statute governing a TNC’s investigation of its drivers
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2301a NATASHA ABNER, etc., Appellant, v. LYFT FLORIDA, INC., etc., et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D24-0479. L.T. Case No. 18-354-CA-01. October 22, 2025. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge. Counsel: Gerson & Schwartz, P.A., and Edward S. Schwartz and Philip M. Gerson, […]
Wrongful death — Negligent hiring — Motor carriers — Brokers — Vicarious liability — Federal preemption — Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act — Safety exception — Action brought against broker who contracted with motor carrier which allegedly caused fatal tractor-trailer accident — Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on estate’s claims that defendant broker negligently selected the motor carrier and was vicariously liable for the motor carrier’s negligence based on determination that claims were federally preempted by FAAAA — Discussion of the FAAAA, express preemption, and the “safety exception” — In absence of controlling authority the district court holds that, while tort claims against a broker fall within the preemption language of the FAAAA, the safety exception exempts those claims from preemption if the facts support a finding of liability — Trial court erred in concluding that safety exception did not apply to brokers based on determination that negligence claims against a broker are not “with respect to motor vehicles” — Plaintiff’s negligence and vicarious liability claims have requisite connection with motor vehicles because they arise out of a motor vehicle accident and fall squarely within the “safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles” — Plain language of safety exception does not require a “direct” connection to motor vehicles to be applicable
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2269a LYNN JOSEPH SIMON, JR., as personal representative of the Estate of Matthew Joseph Simon, deceased, Appellant, v. COYOTE LOGISTICS, LLC; ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, LLC; JOSE M. NIEVEROLDAN; IRIZARRY RIVERA; ANEPHNA TRANSPORT, INC.; and FAISAN TRANSPORT CORP., Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2023-2775. October 22, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for […]