Abbey Adams Logo

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

Articles

by

Insurance — Homeowners — Property damage caused by vehicle crashing into property — Coverage — Mitigation services — Debris removal — Exclusions — Damage to other structures — Fencing — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer in assignee’s action seeking payment for removal and replacement of damaged fencing — Trial court erred in applying policy’s definition of “principal building” when determining whether damages relating to fencing were excluded under policy — Plain reading of policy as a whole demonstrates that definition of principal building applied only when evaluating damages caused by catastrophic ground cover collapse, which was not at issue in instant case — Further, plain language of policy established that structures attached to family dwelling were covered under policy, and there was no genuine dispute that damaged fence was an iron fence attached to the dwelling — Trial court erred in applying exclusion for damages to other structures connected to dwelling by only a fence because the fence at issue was itself a “structure attached to the dwelling,” which fell squarely under Coverage A of the policy — Finally, policy plainly covered reasonable expenses for emergency services and debris removal if the underlying damage to the insured’s property was covered — Trial court should have entered final summary judgment in favor of assignee in invoiced amount

50 Fla. L. Weekly D517a ANYTIME RESTORATION SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC., etc., Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D23-1258. L.T. Case No. 21-13698 SP. February 26, 2025. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Christopher Green, Judge. Counsel: Alonso & Perez, LLP and Rafael F. Alonso, for appellant. Read More »

by

Criminal law — Search and seizure — Arrest — Driving under influence — Misdemeanor-related offenses — Probable cause — Defendant was not entitled to suppression of all evidence relating to his DUI arrest where law enforcement had probable cause to arrest — Totality of circumstances gave officers probable cause to arrest defendant for DUI where information gathered during accident investigation was compounded with facts that defendant admitted driving vehicle at issue, admitted he had been drinking at a bar, was found with the vehicle’s keys in his pocket during initial encounter with police, and had signs of impairment, and police confirmed that vehicle was registered in defendant’s name — Accident report privilege was not a basis for granting motion to suppress, as that privilege was not raised in defendant’s motion or specifically argued at suppression hearing, and state objected when trial court raised privilege at hearing — Accident report privilege was not applicable to statements of bar manager and security guard who were not involved in accident — Under fellow officer rule, officer conducting DUI investigation could rely on security guard’s statement that guard had seen defendant exit the driver’s side of vehicle in making his probable cause determination — Identity of witnesses — Citizen informants — Security guard and bar manager qualified as citizen informants, not anonymous tipsters, and information provided was sufficiently reliable — The witnesses were easily identifiable, as the law enforcement officers were familiar with both witnesses and had prior dealings with them, and witnesses provided information face-to-face with officers

50 Fla. L. Weekly D526a STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. GERSON CONTRERAS SARAVIA, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2024-0371. February 26, 2025. Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Kenneth A. Gottlieb, Judge; L.T. Case No. 23-007751-MU10A. Counsel: James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Read More »

by

Contracts — Partnership agreements — Oral agreement — Damages — Evidence — Hearsay — Exceptions — Business records — Appeal of damage award on plaintiff’s claim for breach of partnership agreement arguing that award was not supported by competent substantial evidence because it was premised on plaintiff’s spreadsheet of his contributions to partnership project which was “fabricated” and inadmissible hearsay — Argument that damage award was not supported by competent substantial evidence was not preserved for appeal where defendant’s objection failed to specifically identify the alleged defects in spreadsheet defendant raises on appeal — Objection on general, non-specific grounds of “predicate” and “hearsay” lacked sufficient specificity to put plaintiff or trial court on notice as to what portion of business records exception was missing — A specific objection would have enabled trial court to “make an intelligent and informed decision” and would have given plaintiff “an opportunity to correct the defects, where possible, by asking additional questions of the witness or calling an additional witness who might be able to correct the defects” — Failure to make proper specific objection obviated plaintiff’s need to cure any defects in spreadsheet

50 Fla. L. Weekly D531a ALBERTO PESCATORE, individually, and DEEPER BLUE SEA, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellants, v. JOSE LUIS FERNANDEZ, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2023-0823. February 26, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jack Tuter, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19009643. Counsel: Ilene L. Pabian, Read More »

by

Rules of Appellate Procedure — Amendments — Proceedings to review final orders of lower tribunals and orders granting new trial in jury and nonjury cases — Proceedings to review nonfinal orders and specified final orders — Proceedings in criminal cases — Uniform citation system

50 Fla. L. Weekly S39a IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC2024-0317. March 6, 2025. Original Proceeding — Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Counsel: Christine Riley Davis, Chair, Appellate Court Rules Committee, St. Petersburg, Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Heather Savage Telfer, Read More »

by

Torts — Product liability — Service of contaminated food — Dismissal — Sanction — Fraud on court — Action alleging that defendant supermarket failed to properly inspect and prepare chicken, resulting in food poisoning which required extensive treatment — Trial court erred in dismissing complaint with prejudice for fraud on court because plaintiff had denied a history of gynecological issues and prior treatment in “the area of the body” she claimed was injured during discovery, despite her medical records showing extensive abdominal and gynecological treatment — Case lacked required explicitness and evidence of intent given the possibility of confusion regarding the questions being asked and the involved body systems, and plaintiff’s full disclosure of prior treating doctors which provided defendant with full access to prior medical treatment — Even if competent, substantial evidence supported finding of fraud, dismissal was not an appropriate sanction

50 Fla. L. Weekly D494a LYNN SWENSON, Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D2023-1117. February 26, 2025. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. James Lee Marsh, Judge. Counsel: Brian Lee, Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Allison Beth Ziegler, Daniel J. Santaniello, and Daniel Stuart Weinger, Luks, Read More »

The owner of this website has made a commitment to accessibility and inclusion, please report any problems that you encounter using the contact form on this website. This site uses the WP ADA Compliance Check plugin to enhance accessibility.