Abbey Adams Logo

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

Articles

by

Civil procedure — Discovery — Cellphone data — Forensic review — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by requiring a forensic expert to make a complete copy of the entire contents of petitioner’s cellphone to be reviewed by petitioner’s attorney where respondent failed to establish that there was any actual or threatened alteration, deletion, or destruction of data on petitioner’s cellphone, and no less intrusive means to obtain the information sought — Petitioner has a reasonable expectation of privacy in contents of her cellphone and, as such, there needed to be an appropriate showing by respondent and a proper balancing of competing interests by trial court — Requiring the imaging and production of the entire contents of one’s cellphone cannot be justified merely because it is the quickest and most efficient method to obtain the discovery sought — Fact that order required disclosure to petitioner’s own attorney was insufficient, without more, to protect petitioner’s privacy rights

49 Fla. L. Weekly D921a ELIZABETH ROQUE, Petitioner, v. LEWIS SWEZY, et al., Respondents. 3rd District. Case No. 3D23-1836. L.T. Case No. 23-16395. May 1, 2024. A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge. Counsel: Young, Berman, Karpf & Karpf, P.A., and Andrew S. Berman, for petitioner. Armstrong Read More »

by

Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Spa — Punitive damages — Trial court did not err in denying motion to amend complaint to assert claim for punitive damages — Evidence failed to demonstrate that defendant engaged in intentional misconduct or gross negligence when it authorized installation throughout the spa of a type of marble flooring that proved slippery

49 Fla. L. Weekly D902b ARIEL FRIEDLER, et al., Appellants, v. FAENA HOTELS AND RESIDENCES, LLC, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D23-1395. L.T. Case No. 18-27906. April 24, 2024. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria de Jesus Santovenia, Judge. Counsel: Brodsky Fotiu-Wojtowicz, PLLC, and Alaina Fotiu-Wojtowicz and Read More »

by

Torts — Premises liability — Restaurants — Slip and fall — Transitory substance — Knowledge of dangerous condition — No error in entering final summary judgment in favor of defendant — Plaintiff cannot prove that defendant had either actual or constructive knowledge of the presence of the substance that caused plaintiff’s fall where plaintiff failed to present any evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude the substance was present for a sufficient length of time, such as footprints, changes in consistency, or drying of liquid

49 Fla. L. Weekly D914a JOSE DURAN, Appellant, v. CRAB SHACK ACQUISITION, FL, LLC, d/b/a JOE’S CRAB SHACK, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D2022-2823. L.T. Case No. 2018-31181-CICI. April 25, 2024. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. Mary G. Jolley, Judge. Counsel: Chad A. Barr, of Chad Barr Law, Altamonte Springs, for Read More »

by

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Coverage — Damages — In the absence of a judicial determination of bad faith, trial court erred in entering judgment against insurer for net amount of jury verdict that exceeded policy limits while limiting execution on the judgment to the policy limits — Discussion of supreme court’s decision in Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois — Trial courts may reference the net verdict amount as the measure of damages should an insured ultimately prevail on a bad faith claim, but may not enter a judgment in that amount — Error to award post-judgment interest on net verdict amount because insured is not presently entitled to be paid that amount and may never be so entitled unless insured brings and prevails on bad faith claim

49 Fla. L. Weekly D845e STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CHARLES FINSON, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2022-2280. April 17, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Cynthia Newton, Judge. Counsel: Warren B. Kwavnick of Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant. Brian J. Lee of Morgan & Morgan, Read More »

by

Real property — Deed — Rescission — Fraud — New trial — Inconsistent verdict — Trial court abused its discretion by granting plaintiff a new trial based on determination that verdict was internally inconsistent because some jurors were confused about verdict entered in favor of defendant and claimed that verdict rendered did not reflect jury’s intent — Jury’s finding that plaintiff had proved his rescission claim was not at odds with jury’s finding that defendants had proved their statute of limitations defense — Jury’s rejection of defendants’ other defenses was, likewise, not at odds with its finding that proven rescission claim was barred by applicable limitations period — As a matter of law, any misunderstanding or confusion jurors may have had at arriving at their collective verdict is inherent in jury’s internal deliberative process, which may not be challenged after verdict is rendered

49 Fla. L. Weekly D856a BLUE WATER COAST SERVICES, LLC and JACQUELINE HYATT, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. DWIGHT MAIZE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. 4th District. Case No. 4D2022-2522. April 17, 2024. Appeal and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; David A. Haimes, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE16-017402. Counsel: Donna Greenspan Solomon of Solomon Appeals, 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.