50 Fla. L. Weekly D1155a CARL DOMINO, INC. and CARL DOMINO, individually, Appellants, v. MICHAEL DIXON, CAROL DIXON, and YOUR PLANNING PARTNER, LLC, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D2024-0646. May 21, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Reid P. Scott, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2017-CA-004091-XXXX-MB. Counsel: Carl Read More »
Articles
Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Judgment obtained at least 25% less than offer — Calculation — Trial court erred by awarding defendant its attorney’s fees and costs based on a rejected proposal for settlement where trial court failed to include plaintiff’s pre-offer attorney’s fees and costs in its calculation when determining whether the judgment obtained was 25% less than defendant’s offer — Discussion of White v. Steak & Ale of Fla., Inc. — A “judgment obtained” under section 768.79(7) includes the net judgment for damages and any attorneys’ fees and taxable costs that could have been included in a final judgment if such final judgment was entered on the date of the offer — Because plaintiff sought statutory attorney’s fees and costs as part of its claim against defendant, plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and fees were required to be included to derive threshold “judgment obtained” — Application of the formula does not turn on whether the offer includes attorney’s fees and costs
50 Fla. L. Weekly D1129a SFR SERVICES, LLC a/a/o JOHN & ROSE ZAPISEK, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES o/b/o AVATAR PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 6th District. Case No. 6D2023-1050. L.T. Case No. 19-CA-001630. May 16, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Leigh Frizzell Hayes, Judge. Counsel: Melissa A. Read More »
Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Timeliness of motion — Trial court erred by awarding plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs as prevailing party where motion for fees was filed more than thirty days after rendition of underlying final judgment — Discussion of rule 1.525 and the supreme court’s decision in AmerUs Life Insurance Co. v. Lait — Exception to rule 1.525’s thirty-day deadline set forth in AmerUs was not applicable to instant case where, although final judgment expressly stated that plaintiffs were the prevailing party and quoted a contractual provision stating that the prevailing party “shall be entitled to recover attorney’s fees,” it was not clear from face of judgment that trial court had determined that plaintiffs were entitled to recover attorney’s fees and that its reservation of jurisdiction was only to determine the amount of fees — Judgment’s reservation of jurisdiction to “consider an award” does not clearly indicate that the only thing left to do is determine an amount — While it may be inferred that trial court made a determination of entitlement to fees based on the language of the judgment as a whole, appellate court declines to expand AmerUs exception to encompass a judgment that does not explicitly and unequivocally find one side liable for the other’s attorney’s fees and costs
50 Fla. L. Weekly D1023f BRADLEY BERG; TINA BERG; BTJJ HOLDINGS, LLC; and BTJJ CONSERVATION CORP. n/k/a RBC CONSERVATION CORP., Appellants, v. MICHAEL SCURRY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2024-0845. May 7, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Cynthia J. Newton, Judge. Counsel: Gregory T. Elliott of Elliott – Berger, P.A., Seminole, Read More »
Insurance — Property damage — Witnesses — Recall — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying insurer’s request to recall witness where any additional testimony would have been cumulative in nature
50 Fla. L. Weekly D1041a UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. DR. ELIAS CHOUSLEB, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D24-0200. L.T. Case No. 20-3269-CA-01. May 7, 2025. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge. Counsel: Russo Lima Appellate Firm, P.A., Elizabeth K. Russo and Paulo R. Lima, for Read More »
Insurance — Property damage — Homeowners — All-risk policy — Coverage — Water damage — Roof leak — Exclusions — Opening not created by covered peril — Age-related wear and tear — Endorsement excluding loss caused by water penetrating through roof system unless penetration was a direct result of damage caused by a covered peril clearly precluded coverage for an “ensuing loss” in form of water damage to the home’s interior where leak was caused by age-related wear and tear, an explicitly excluded peril — Assignee failed to present evidence of any exception to exclusion
50 Fla. L. Weekly D1038a SPARTAN SERVICES CORP., et al., Appellants, v. PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D23-2301. L.T. Case No. 21-33904-CC-05. May 7, 2025. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Miesha Darrough, Judge. Counsel: Vyacheslav Borshchukov, P.A., and Slava Borshchukov (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants. Brett Frankel and Read More »