Articles

by

Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties

29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C1084a SA PALM BEACH, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON, UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDSLONDON KNOWN AS SYNDICATES CNP 4444, AFB 2623, AFB 623, BRT, 2987, BRT 2988, NEO 2468, SAM 727, AXS1686, XIS H4202, QBE 1886, DUW 1729, WBC 5886, Read More »

by

Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business income losses — Trial court’s finding that policy covering loss of business income due to the suspension of operations caused by “direct physical loss or damage to property” required some tangible alteration to insured property comported with common meaning of its terms and context of policy as a whole — Policy did not cover economic losses insured suffered when it suspended its operations due to COVID-19 pandemic — No error in dismissing with prejudice insured’s petition for declaratory relief and damages

47 Fla. L. Weekly D1044a COMMODORE, INC. d/b/a GREENSTREET CAFÉ, INC., Appellant, v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON, etc., et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-0671. L.T. Case No. 20-10334. May 11, 2022. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael A. Hanzman, Judge. Counsel: Reed Smith LLP and R. Hugh Lumpkin Read More »

by

Torts — Negligent security — Sovereign immunity — Agency — Limited immunity — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action brought against company which contracted with county to provide security services and its employee — Defendant company was entitled to limited sovereign immunity under 768.28(5) where county asserted a degree of control over defendant’s employees — Fact that defendant’s employee was working alone rather than side-by-side with county employees did not change level of control county had over defendant employee as evidenced by contract between county and defendant — Absolute immunity under section 768.28(9) applied to defendant employee, but did not apply to defendant company because it is a corporation — No abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint to add count for punitive damages where record is devoid of evidence that defendant employee engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence

47 Fla. L. Weekly D998a KELLIANNE NASO, as personal representative of the Estate of Allan Dwoskin, Appellant, v. RONALD HALL and G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D21-1521. May 4, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jeffrey R. Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19024776. Read More »

by

Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Assignee’s action against insurer to recover payment for construction work performed on insured property following hurricane damage — Court adopts magistrate’s report and recommendation concluding that Section 627.7152(10), Florida Statutes, which repeals assignee’s standing to recover attorney’s fees under section 627.428, does not apply in instant case where both issuance of policy and assignment agreement predated effective date of statute — Whether relevant date for purposes of applying statute is date policy was issued or date assignment agreement was entered into need not be resolved under circumstances — Motion to strike plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees is denied

29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D68a CASTILLA ROOFING, INC., a/a/o, Allan Thomas, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, Defendant. U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. Case No. 2:19-cv-613-FtM-38MRM. February 19, 2020. Sheri Polster Chappell, Judge. Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, Mac R. McCoy, U.S. Magistrate Judge, January 30, 2020.ORDER1 Before Read More »

by

Torts — Dog bite — Negligence — Sheriffs — Sovereign immunity — Action alleging deputy sheriff was negligent in handling K-9 that bit plaintiff while attending a public event — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint against sheriff on ground that action was barred by sovereign immunity — Although a plaintiff may not rely on section 767.04 when suing a state agency for a dog bite because it is a strict liability statute, a plaintiff may bring such a suit in common-law negligence — Complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence under common law principles — Court rejects argument that plaintiff placed himself in zone of risk by approaching area occupied by deputy and police dog, and that because deputy did not move in proximity to plaintiff there was no zone of risk created by conduct of deputy — Deputy created the zone of risk by patrolling the venue with his K-9 — Whether the deputy was walking around or standing still was irrelevant — Because plaintiff was in a public location he had the right to walk where he wanted, including right up to the deputy, and, unless warned by the deputy to move away, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the dog would not bite him — Lawsuit was not barred by sovereign immunity where, although the decision to patrol the public venue with K-9s may have been a discretionary function, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational

47 Fla. L. Weekly D966a ROBERT McKINLEY, Appellant, v. BOB GUALTIERI, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D20-3156. May 4, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Thomas Ramsberger, Judge. Counsel: Samuel Alexander of Alexander Appellate Law P.A., Deland, for Appellant. Nicole E. Durkin, Read More »