49 Fla. L. Weekly D648a ISMAEL PEREIRA, Appellant, v. EMILY JONES, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gregory Wilkes, and GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D22-2197. L.T. Case No. 2020-CA-001490-A. March 22, 2024. Nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County. Dan R. Mosley, Judge. Counsel: Aaron Sprague and Stefano Read More »
Articles
Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Joint proposal — Validity — Trial court erred by denying defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to their joint proposal for settlement based on determination that proposal was invalid because it failed to apportion settlement amount between the two offerors as required by procedural rule governing joint proposals — Although proposal was a joint proposal governed by rule 1.442(c)(3), the rule’s apportionment requirement was not applicable where complaint alleged that one offeror was merely constructively liable for the damages caused by co-offeror’s breach of contract
49 Fla. L. Weekly D620a WEBJET LINHAS AEREAS S.A., etc., et al., Appellants, v. ZGA AIRCRAFT LEASING, INC., etc., Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-1736. L.T. Case No. 15-14374. March 20, 2024. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr, Judge. Counsel: King & Spalding LLP, and W. Randall Bassett Read More »
Attorney’s fees — Costs — Expert witness fees — Trial court did not abuse discretion in taxing as a cost an expert’s fee for his testimony on reasonableness of appellate attorney’s fees incurred by trustee of family trust — Trial courts have discretion to determine whether to award expert fees for experts testifying as to the reasonableness of attorney’s fees — Pursuant to appellate court’s attorney’s fees order, trial court did not err in determining the equities of the fee award prior to determining the underlying lawsuit’s merits, and competent substantial evidence supported trial court’s fee award
49 Fla. L. Weekly D630b DALE ECHEVERRIA, Appellant, v. SUZANNE J. TROMBINO, individually, and as trustee of THE FAMILY TRUST CREATED UNDER THE JOSE I. ECHEVERRIA 2006 TRUST, and as trustee of THE DOROTHY JEANNE 2006 TRUST, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2023-0739. March 20, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Read More »
Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Joint proposal — Validity — Trial court erred by denying defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to their joint proposal for settlement based on determination that proposal was invalid because it failed to apportion settlement amount between the two offerors as required by procedural rule governing joint proposals — Although proposal was a joint proposal governed by rule 1.442(c)(3), the rule’s apportionment requirement was not applicable where complaint alleged that one offeror was merely constructively liable for the damages caused by co-offeror’s breach of contract
49 Fla. L. Weekly D620a WEBJET LINHAS AEREAS S.A., etc., et al., Appellants, v. ZGA AIRCRAFT LEASING, INC., etc., Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-1736. L.T. Case No. 15-14374. March 20, 2024. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr, Judge. Counsel: King & Spalding LLP, and W. Randall Bassett Read More »
Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Residence — Independent contractors — Business invitees — Open and obvious danger — Summary judgment — Action stemming from injuries plaintiff suffered when he slipped on green algae on defendant’s deck while walking to defendant’s front door to drop off paperwork related to lawn services plaintiff’s employer was hired to perform — Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant based on determination that plaintiff was the employee of an independent contractor who was injured in the course and scope of performing his contractual duties, and that no reasonable jury could find that the algae was anything but open and obvious — Plaintiff’s injuries were not sustained in the course of performing his contractual duties where plaintiff was merely entering the property and had not yet begun performing lawn services — Because plaintiff’s injuries were not sustained in course of his contractual duties, defendant’s duty to plaintiff should have been analyzed under framework governing a landowner’s duty to business invitees — There was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the dangerous condition of the deck was open and obvious where plaintiff testified that deck did not look wet and defendant himself was uncertain about the deck’s slipperiness — Additionally, regardless of whether hazard was open and obvious, defendant had a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition by repairing conditions that defendant anticipates will cause harm — There was a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether defendant had properly maintained the deck in a reasonably safe condition and whether he should have anticipated that the dangerous condition would cause injury where defendant acknowledged that the deck needed to be maintained during the year and that deck needed to be cleaned at the time of plaintiff’s fall, and agreed that the portion of the deck with the algae on it should not have been walked upon
49 Fla. L. Weekly D610a TEKI WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. JOHN WEAVER, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D23-0324. L.T. Case No. 2019-CA-000171. March 15, 2024. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County. Eric C. Roberson, Judge. Counsel: Brian J. Lee, of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Kansas R. Gooden, Miami, and Lara Edelstein, Read More »