31 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C529a L. SQUARED INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. 11th Circuit. Case No. 23-13031. October 15, 2025. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 3:21-cv-01104-BJD-PDB). (Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.) (PER CURIAM.) This case is about whether Nautilus Insurance Co. Read More »
Articles
Dependent children — Torts — Immunity — Child abuse reports — False imprisonment — Battery — Intentional infliction of emotional distress — Medical malpractice — Agency — Action brought against hospital where plaintiff child was admitted and subsequently sheltered by dependency court following hospital’s reports of suspected abuse and neglect, which subsequently resulted in child’s months-long placement with hospital, supervised and limited parental visitation, and the eventual suicide of mother — Discussion of section 39.203(1)(a) immunity and the interplay of chapter 39 with claims raised in instant case — Statute protects not only institutions which report abuse in good faith, but also those institutions which participate in good faith in any act authorized or required by chapter 39 — Trial court erred by not considering the entirety of section 39.203(1)(a) and its application to the facts of case beyond hospital’s immunity from claims premised on or immediately resulting from the reports of suspected child abuse — Trial court erred by denying hospital’s motions for directed verdict on false imprisonment claim where section 39.395 provided color of authority for hospital’s detention of child during period between first and second reports to Department of Children and Families — Moreover, hospital’s actions were authorized or required by chapter 39, and there is no evidence that its participation was not in good faith — Trial court erred by denying motion for directed verdict on claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress specific to mother, which were based on statements made to child and father, where plaintiffs failed to present evidence that mother was target of any conduct alleged to be outrageous and evidence was insufficient as a matter of law — Trial court erred by denying motion for directed verdict on claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress specific to child where trial court considered evidence for which hospital should have been immune from liability — Actions for which hospital should have been immune pursuant to section 39.203(1)(a) cannot be used to establish liability — Additionally, IIED conduct must not be violative of another tort, and conduct alleged to be outrageous in instant action was itself a pleaded tort — With regard to medical negligence claim, trial court erred by denying motion for directed verdict on issue of apparent agency as it related to medical director of the Child Protection Team to whom hospital reported alleged abuse where evidence showed that plaintiffs were aware director was not employed by hospital and plaintiffs presented no evidence that they materially changed their position on basis of director being an apparent agent of hospital — Even if director was an apparent agent of hospital, she was authorized by chapter 39 to take the actions she took and was acting in good faith — Damages — Punitive damages — Trial court erred in denying hospital’s motion for directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages as to the false imprisonment and battery claims where there was no evidence that hospital actively and knowingly participated in or engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence, or that the officers, directors, or managers of hospital condoned or ratified the conduct — Fraudulent billing — Trial court erred by denying motion for directed verdict on claim that hospital fraudulently billed plaintiffs’ health insurance carrier where plaintiffs presented no evidence that hospital made a false statement of material fact in billing insurer under code for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome — Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered pecuniary injury from alleged fraudulent billing — Because trial court’s error in interpreting section 39.203 pervaded not only the court’s evidentiary rulings but the trial itself, a new trial is necessary on all remaining counts
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2325a JOHNS HOPKINS ALL CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, INC., Appellant, v. MAYA KOWALSKI and JACK KOWALSKI, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Beata Kowalski, deceased, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2024-0382. October 29, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Hunter W. Carroll, Judge. Counsel: Derek M. Stikeleather, Read More »
Insurance — Coverage — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — No error in determining that insurer was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to its proposal for settlement — Proposal was enforceable where indemnification provision was not ambiguous and did not conflict with release — Amount — Hearing — Trial court violated insured’s due process rights by entering monetary award for fees where amount of award was not noticed to be heard at hearing on issue of entitlement to fees
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2278b HENRY VEGA, Appellant, v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2024-1397. October 22, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jeffrey R. Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-17-007442. Counsel: Melissa A. Giasi of Giasi Law, P.A., Tampa, for appellant. Maureen G. Read More »
Insurance — Homeowners — All-risks policy — Roof — Coverage — Directed verdict — Trial court erred by granting insurer’s motions for directed verdict based on conclusion that insurer had paid the actual cash value of the loss as required by policy in the amount of the only actual cash value estimate, and that no further payment was required because no additional work was performed or expenses incurred — Trial court erred in finding that insureds’ estimate was not an ACV estimate because it included costs for matching roof tiles, costs incidental to the repair and construction process, and costs for compliance with the building code’s 25% rule — Because policy at issue contains ordinance and law coverage which required insurer to cover costs incurred as a result of any ordinance that requires them to replace “the portion of the undamaged part of a covered building,” and there was evidence presented that building code required full roof replacement, trial court should have accepted insureds’ estimate as an ACV estimate — Parties’ disputes regarding scope of home damage, percentage of the roof that was damaged, and the cost to repair the damages were factual disputes that should have been submitted to the jury — Trial court erred in finding that, once insurer paid ACV for the loss, less the deductible, it was not required to make any further payments because the insureds did not begin to replace their roof before filing suit — Where an insurer denies coverage entirely, neither the policy nor section 627.7011 prevents an insured from seeking damages for breach of contract — Court rejects argument that, in order to recover for roof replacement, insured must first pay for the full roof replacement and provide a copy of their payment to insurer — Trial court erred in finding that insurer had satisfied its obligations under policy because insureds did not provide insurer with acceptable estimate — Because policy did not require insureds to provide an ACV estimate and insured undisputedly provided insurer with an estimate for repairs, insureds satisfied their obligations prior to filing suit
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2307a CLIFTON WESTON and VALONA WESTON, Appellants, v. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2024-1340. October 24, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Alicia Polk, Judge. Counsel: Barbara M. Hernando, Dean Makris and Gabriel F. Torre of Makris & Mullinax, P.A., Tampa, for Read More »
Torts — Automobile accident — Damages — Future medical expenses — Evidence — Expert — Treating physician — Trial court erred by allowing treating physician to offer his detailed opinion regarding plaintiff’s future medical expenses where, although physician’s witness disclosure referenced costs and future medical care, physician was not disclosed as a retained expert and plaintiff had failed to respond to expert discovery regarding treating physician — Treating physician’s opinions as to plaintiff’s future medical treatment and costs, including opinions based on his review of plaintiff’s medical records from other providers, exceeded the scope of a fact witness treating physician and crossed the line into expert testimony — Error in admitting evidence was not harmless — Fact that treating physician only transcribed his opinions concerning future treatment costs two days before he testified does not excuse the nondisclosure — Assuming treating physician truly developed these opinions in the course of treatment as he testified, then plaintiff had every opportunity to ensure that physician’s opinions were contained in medical records or otherwise properly disclosed — Court rejects plaintiff’s argument that opinion was properly admitted because defendant had opportunity to depose physician regarding his opinions on future medical care, but failed to do so — Based on the records disclosed, there was no reason for defendant to believe that treating physician would take the stand prepared to offer detailed projection of plaintiff’s future treatment costs — Remand for new trial
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2282d KRISTOPHER RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. DAERI TENERY, Appellee. 6th District. Case No. 6D2023-2853. L.T. Case No. 2018-CA-013196-O. October 21, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Vincent Falcone, III, Judge. Counsel: Kevin D. Franz, of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Boca Raton, and Jennifer A. Karr, of Boyd & Jenerette, Read More »