46 Fla. L. Weekly D486d JUNIOR JULIEN, Appellant, v. UNITED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D19-2763. March 3, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Michael A. Robinson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-18-017983 (13). Counsel: George A. Vaka and Nancy A. Lauten of Vaka Read More »
Articles
Torts — Discovery — Denial — Judicial estoppel — Attorney-client privilege — Appeals — Certiorari — Parties stipulating in federal court that no further discovery was required in order to resolve defendant’s summary judgment motion asserting that plaintiff’s claims against her had been settled — Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by relying on judicial estoppel to prohibit parties from engaging in any discovery related to defendant’s affirmative defense that the underlying personal injury claims were settled prior to suit being filed — In judicial proceedings, a party is not estopped from asserting a later inconsistent position unless the party’s initial position was successfully maintained — Defendant did not successfully maintain position that all facts had been successfully developed and presented where, although both parties stipulated that no further discovery was needed, federal judge disagreed by finding too many unanswered factual questions to permit entry of summary judgment in defendant’s favor — A party such as defendant is not estopped from relying upon such an adverse ruling and asserting any position consistent with that ruling — Furthermore, trial court erroneously treated federal court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment as though it was a binding, substantive ruling — Because federal court ultimately determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, it could not make binding, substantive rulings — Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the parties’ stipulation — Trial court also departed from essential requirements of the law by applying attorney-client privilege without consideration of its waiver as a basis for banning discovery into settlement defense — Prohibiting all discovery on settlement issue eviscerated defendant’s settlement defense, resulting in irreparable harm
46 Fla. L. Weekly D507b ALEYSSA MARIE ARROYO MARRERO, Petitioner, v. TERENCE REA, Respondent. 5th District. Case No. 5D20-1612. Opinion filed March 5, 2021. Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Kevin B. Weiss, Judge. Counsel: Sharon C. Degnan, of Kubicki Draper, Orlando, for Petitioner. Brian J. Lee, of Read More »
Torts — Damages — Setoff — Discovery — Settlement agreements — Appeals — Certiorari — Petition seeking review of order denying discovery of plaintiff’s settlements with other defendants, asserting that denial wholly eviscerates defendant’s affirmative defense of setoff — Petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where defendant has failed to make a threshold showing of harm irremediable on appeal
46 Fla. L. Weekly D294a AMERICAN PRIME TITLE SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. ZHI WANG, et al., Respondents. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-1153. L.T. Case No. 19-4213. February 3, 2021. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Veronica A. Diaz, Judge. Counsel: Waugh Law, P.A., and Morgan L. Fayocavitz, and Read More »
Insurance — Fire — Appeals — Certiorari — Order granting partial summary judgment in favor of insured and directing insurer to pay insured a specified sum for fire damage to his house within 10 days of date of order was departure from essential requirements of law, resulting in irreparable harm, where factually related claims remained unresolved — Portions of order requiring payment prior to entry of final judgment quashed
46 Fla. L. Weekly D287a PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ENRIQUE GONZALEZ, Respondent. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-923. L.T. Case No. 19-7413. Opinion filed February 3, 2021. A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge. Counsel: Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., and David C. Borucke (Tampa), for petitioner. Read More »
Wrongful death — Evidence — Hearsay — Where decedent was killed when a tractor-trailer backed over him, and there were issues as to whether driver honked his horn before backing up, and if he did, why decedent did not hear the horn and move to a safe position, it was error to admit the deposition of a police detective who testified that another officer told him that decedent had an earbud in his ear when lying on the ground after the accident — Testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay — Error was not harmless
46 Fla. L. Weekly D233b GAIL JOHNSON DAYES, etc., Appellant, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D19-1920. L.T. Case No. 17-18241. January 27, 2021. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge. Counsel: Falk, Waas, Hernandez & Solomon, P.A., and Glenn P. Falk; Russo Appellate Firm, Read More »