49 Fla. L. Weekly D1340a AILEEN BAILEY, Appellant, v. PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2023-1136. June 20, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; James Nutt, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2021-CA-011438-XXXX-MB. Counsel: Matthew Struble of Struble, P.A., Indialantic, for appellant. Mark D. Tinker and […]
Articles
Arbitration — Non-binding arbitration — Trial de novo — Timeliness of request — Trial court did not err by entering judgment in accordance with arbitrator’s liability and damages determinations where appellant did not file a motion for trial de novo within twenty days of service of the arbitration decision as required by rule 1.820(h), or seek to show excusable neglect for their untimeliness under rule 1.540(b) — Discussion of appellate court’s decision in Nicholson-Kenny Capital Management, Inc. v. Steinberg, which held that filing of motion for trial was not required under certain circumstances and that rule 1.820(h) merely required “some notice” to an opposing party that its adversary was rejecting arbitration award and renewing its demand for trial — Appellate court recedes from Nicholson-Kenny to extent it relied on “some notice” rationale as it conflicts with the mandatory plain language of section 44.103(5) and rule 1.820(h) — Plain language of statute and rule requires a party to file a “request for trial de novo” or a “motion for trial” within twenty days of service of an arbitrator’s decision — Conflict certified
49 Fla. L. Weekly D1420a LAWNWOOD MEDICAL CENTER, INC., d/b/a LAWNWOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AND HEART INSTITUTE and PATRICK REGAN, D.O., Appellants, v. GWENDOLYN ROUSE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Marleana Rouse, et al., Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D2022-2637. July 3, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, […]
Insurance — Hurricane damage — Coverage — Attorney’s fees — Amount — Hourly rate — Contingency fee multiplier — Competent, substantial evidence supports lodestar determination that insureds’ counsel’s $600 hourly rate was reasonable given counsel’s expertise and current market conditions — Trial court abused its discretion by awarding an extra $50 an hour than what was requested by insureds’ counsel where record is devoid of any justification for upward deviation — Trial court erred by applying 2.0 contingency fee multiplier where there was no testimony from the insureds that they had any difficulty retaining counsel with or without a multiplier, and trial court failed to make findings regarding novelty and difficulty of the question involved or whether insureds could find any other competent attorney in relevant market to handle case — Furthermore, there was no evidence that insureds’ counsel could not mitigate against risk of nonpayment, or findings regarding the skill required to perform particular legal services at issue properly or the likelihood that acceptance of instant action would preclude other employment by counsel
49 Fla. L. Weekly D1364a SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. ELIGIO CASTELLANOS and ISABEL SILES, Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-1455. L.T. Case No. 16-14752. June 26, 2024. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Counsel: Bickford & Chidnese, LLP, and Patrick M. Chidnese and Frieda C. Lindroth (Tampa), […]
Torts — Automobile accident — Punitive damages — Gross negligence — Cell phone usage — Amendment of complaint — Error to grant plaintiff leave to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages based on defendant’s handling of cell phone just prior to crash — While defendant appears to have violated federal regulation prohibiting commercial truck drivers from using hand-held cell phones, it cannot be concluded that mere use of the cell phone provided a reasonable basis for plaintiff to seek punitive damages — There must be some additional act showing that cell phone usage was reckless or in conscious disregard of or indifference to others to show gross negligence under section 768.72(2)(b)
49 Fla. L. Weekly D1396a TIMOTHY MERCER, Appellant, v. SADDLE CREEK TRANSPORTATION, INC. and CARMEN RIVERA, Appellees. 6th District. Case No. 6D23-2681. L.T. Case No. 2019-CA-003039. June 28, 2024. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Osceola County. Tom Young, Judge. Counsel: Hinda Klein, of Conroy Simberg, Hollywood, for […]
Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure – – Effective January 1, 2025
The Florida Supreme Court issued two opinions (SC2023-0962 and SC2024-0662) making comprehensive amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. These new rules implement many of the changes recommended by the Workgroup on Improved Resolution of Civil Cases, along with adopting recommendations made by the Florida Bar Civil Procedure Rules Committee. The new rules are […]