46 Fla. L. Weekly D1092a COMPAÑIA GENERAL FINANCIERA Y DESARROLLO, S.A., etc., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. BNP PARIBAS, S.A. f/k/a La Banque Nationale de Paris, etc., Appellee/Cross-Appellant. 3rd District. Case No. 3D19-1738. L.T. Case No. 11-17213. May 12, 2021. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz and Norma S. Lindsey, Judges. Counsel: Ainsworth Read More »
Articles
Insurance — Homeowners — Post-loss obligations — Trial court properly entered summary judgment for insurer in insured’s breach of contract action on basis that insured failed to provide sworn proof of loss — Insured’s claim that insurer waived its right to demand compliance with post-loss obligations by denying insured’s supplemental claim was not preserved for appellate review where that specific argument was not raised in trial court — Insured did not cooperate “to some degree” with proof of loss requirement — Insurer was not required to demonstrate that it was prejudiced by insured’s failure to comply with proof of loss requirement
46 Fla. L. Weekly D1086a BEVERLY EDWARDS, Appellant, v. SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D21-107. May 12, 2021. Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Terri-Ann Miller, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. COSO-17-006731 (62) and CACE-19-017593 (AP). Counsel: Justin Cernitz of Cernitz Shabran, LLC, Miami, and Paul B. Read More »
Insurance — Automobile — Non-owned vehicles — Regular use — Coverage — Action stemming from fatal single-vehicle accident brought against non-owner driver’s insurer alleging a breach of duty to defend and indemnify in wrongful death action — Trial court erred in entering partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff because there was no coverage for the subject loss under driver’s insurance policy, which defined a covered “non-owned auto” as a private passenger auto “not owned by, furnished or available for regular use” of either the insured or insured’s relative, other than a “temporary substitute auto” — The phrase “furnished or available for regular use” is clear and unambiguous, and trial court was required to construe it in accordance with its plain meaning — Subject vehicle was not covered under driver’s policy where, although the owner of the vehicle arguably may not have furnished the subject vehicle to the driver for regular use, the undisputed facts reflect that subject vehicle was nevertheless ready for use; readily obtainable; and accessible to the driver for usual, normal, or customary use at driver’s discretion, such that it was “available for regular use” — Remand for entry of final judgment in favor of insurer
46 Fla. L. Weekly D1079b GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant, v. BRIAN WALKER, as personal representative of the estate of SOPHIE C. WALKER and as assignee of the estate of ANDRES IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ GOMEZ, and CARLOS ENRIQUE GILL RAMIREZ a/k/a CARLOS GILL, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D20-764. May 12, 2021. Appeal and cross-appeal from the Read More »
Torts — Discovery — Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to establish reversible error in trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for protective order and denying plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions where plaintiff has failed to provide transcript of hearing during which discovery motions were discussed — Summary judgment — Claim that trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to continue summary judgment hearing was not preserved for appellate review where plaintiff never obtained an order denying his motion to continue hearing
46 Fla. L. Weekly D1028a HENRY TIEN, Appellant, v. AKERMAN LLP (and the terminated AKERMAN, SENTERFITT & EIDSON, P.A.), Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D19-0281. L.T. Case No. 15-7219. May 5, 2021. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge. Counsel: Henry Tien, in proper person. Kubicki Draper, P.A., and Read More »
Rules of Civil Procedure — Amendment — Summary judgment — Adoption of amendment to rule 1.510 which largely replaces the text of rule 1.510 with text of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 — Discussion of federal summary judgment standard and the application of the new rule 1.510 — Unlike rule 56, rule 1.510 makes the trial court’s obligation to state its reasons for granting or denying a summary judgment mandatory — Court must state reasons for its decisions with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and to allow for appellate review — Summary judgment motion must be filed at least 40 days before time fixed for a hearing, and nonmovant must respond with its supporting factual position at least 20 days before hearing — Discussion of application to pending cases
46 Fla. L. Weekly S95a IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.510. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC20-1490. April 29, 2021. Original Proceeding — Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel: Evelyn Fletcher Davis on behalf of Hawkins Parnell & Young LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Jennifer Marie Voss, Tampa, and Daniel B. Rogers Read More »