Abbey Adams Logo

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

Articles

by

Insurance — Property — Coverage — Post-loss obligations — Prompt notice — Trial court erred by denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict asserting that insureds failed to meet certain conditions precedent required by the policy and failed to show that insurer did not provide requisite actual cash value or replacement cost under the policy — While insureds provided prompt notice of damage to covered real property as a result of hurricane, record shows that insureds did not promptly provide insurer with information regarding lost personal property — Because insurer notified insureds that they had to provide information regarding lost personal property two days after hurricane, notice of loss provided ten months later cannot be considered “prompt” — Furthermore, no record evidence shows that insureds provided insurer with receipts or proof of loss of fair rental value during time property had to be repaired — Even if summary of rental value for the year prior to the hurricane could be considered proper notice of rental value, notice was not promptly given — Because insureds failed to rebut presumption that insurer was prejudiced by insureds’ failure to provide prompt notice, insurer was under no obligation to make payments for claims of damaged personal property and fair rental value — Loss mitigation — Evidence shows that insureds did not make reasonable and necessary repairs to protect property from further damage after hurricane as required by policy where it took insureds six months to have roof and siding replaced and no other work has been done on the property since the hurricane — Maintenance of records and receipts — Insureds did not substantially comply with their post-loss obligation to keep accurate records of receipts, payments, or other documents showing their expenditures caused by hurricane — Because insureds never provided insurer with proof that they incurred costs requiring repayment, insurer was not required to pay for those claims — Amount of loss — Insurer was entitled to a directed verdict as to the claimed personal property damages where policy stated that insurer would only pay ACV of the items and, in addition to failing to provide prompt notice of claim, insureds failed to provide insurer with the RCV of the items and the appropriate allocated depreciation for the items — Without evidence of the proper expenses that should be deducted from the revenues for renting, a reasonable jury could not reach a verdict that insureds were entitled to the requested fair rental value loss in their sworn proof of loss and public adjuster’s estimate — Evidence was insufficient for a jury to conclude that insurer breached policy regarding payments for loss to the property itself where insureds paid ACV and insured could not show that insurer was liable for RCV under the policy — When an insured’s estimate and evidence provides only for RCV costs and no evidence is presented to challenge the insurer’s ACV payout, no breach of contract occurs when the insurer fails to pay monies under the insured’s estimate

50 Fla. L. Weekly D648b HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. THOMAS CLARK and REBECCA CLARK, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D2023-1622. March 19, 2025. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Amy P. Brodersen, Judge. Counsel: Curt Allen, Bryan D. Hull, and Laura B. Labbee of Bush Ross, Read More »

by

Torts — Automobile accident — Comparative negligence — Directed verdict — New trial — Plaintiff who was struck by one driver while walking across the highway and knocked into another lane of traffic where she was struck by a second driver — No error in denying second driver’s motion for directed verdict — Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find second driver liable for the accident where experts testified that, based on second driver’s own testimony and within a reasonable degree of scientific probability, second driver could have seen plaintiff in the street, reacted, and steered the vehicle out of the way prior to impact — To extent second driver’s speed was disputed, such uncertainty would not preclude finding of liability given expert testimony that plaintiff would have been visible under street lights regardless of how far away second driver was prior to impact — Trial court did not err in denying second driver’s motion for new trial alleging that trial court abused its discretion by sustaining several of plaintiff’s objections to defense counsel’s attempt to rehabilitate second driver after she was impeached with her prior inconsistent statements in her deposition testimony regarding her speed — Even if trial court abused its discretion in sustaining objections to defense counsel’s questioning, it had no bearing on verdict — Furthermore, second driver invited error by repeatedly failing to object when other witnesses testified about the deposition transcripts

50 Fla. L. Weekly D667a LATRICE PLA, Appellant, v. ASHLEY RIERSON, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case Nos. 3D23-0088 & 3D23-1712. L.T. Case No. 11-978-P. March 19, 2025. Appeals from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, James M. Barton, II, and Luis Garcia, Judges. Counsel: Boyd Richards Parker Colonnelli, PL, and John H. Richards (Fort Read More »

by

Torts — Automobile accident — Discovery — Medical records — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law by allowing defendant to issue subpoenas to non-party healthcare providers seeking plaintiff’s medical records — Plaintiff’s request that production be limited to the ten years preceding accident was properly rejected where plaintiff admitted that she had been disabled from a back injury for nearly forty years — Subpoenas did not lack proper scope by requesting “any and all records” — Plaintiff failed to carry burden of showing high probability that subpoenas would result in production of irrelevant medical records — Trial court did not err in denying request for in-camera inspection of records where plaintiff never requested or expressed need for in-camera inspection until after trial court had denied plaintiff’s other objections in their entirety

50 Fla. L. Weekly D685b BRENDA VALYOU, Petitioner, v. RONALD ESCUDERO NAVEDO, Respondent. 6th District. Case No. 6D2024-1407. L.T. Case No. 2023-CA-002510 AN. March 21, 2025. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Osceola County. Christine E. Arendas, Judge. Counsel: David L. Luck and Ladisleydi Almaguer, of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Miami, Read More »

by

Insurance — Contracts — Property remediation services — Enforceability — Assignment of benefits — Action alleging homeowner breached contract for the provision of post-loss remedial services covered by the terms of a residential property insurance policy — Trial court erred by denying homeowner’s motion for summary judgment — Contract at issue was an “assignment agreement” as defined in section 627.7152(1)(b) because it was an instrument by which post-loss benefits under a residential property insurance policy were assigned or transferred to or from a person providing services — Because agreement did not adhere to the requirements of section 627.7152, it was invalid and unenforceable

50 Fla. L. Weekly D622c RONDA ELLIS, Appellant, v. TITAN RESTORATION CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2024-0085. March 12, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Maxine D. Cheesman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502021CA012105. Counsel: Luke Lirot of Luke Charles Lirot, P.A., Clearwater, for appellant. Paul Read More »

by

Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Spoliation of evidence — Electronically stored information — Trial court erred in giving jury instruction on adverse inference arising from spoliation of evidence as sanction for 2-minute gap missing from surveillance videos of area in which incident occurred — Evidence did not support a finding of negligent nonproduction of material evidence that defendant had a duty to preserve and produce or a finding that gap was result of intentional bad faith conduct designed to deprive plaintiff of the missing information — Trial court impermissibly shifted burden of proof to defendant by requiring defendant to prove nonexistence of any of required elements for finding of spoliation without any initial showing by plaintiff — Trial court further abused its discretion by denying defendant an opportunity to present evidence rebutting adverse inference

50 Fla. L. Weekly D611a WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, Appellant, v. ELIDA MARIA GARCIA PINEDA, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D23-0793. L.T. Case No. 20-26469. March 12, 2025. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Counsel: GrayRobinson, P.A., and Jack R. Reiter and Eric M. Yesner and Sydney Feldman 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.