49 Fla. L. Weekly D599a CARY PORTNER, Appellant, v. GIL KOPPEL and ALEKSANDRA KOPPEL, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D2023-1017. March 13, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Maxine Cheesman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2021-CA-013227-XXXX-MB. Counsel: Nicole Nicolette Mace and Curt Sanchez of the Law Offices of Read More »
Articles
Civil procedure — Default judgment — Relief from judgment — Service of process — Return of service — Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to quash service and vacate final default judgment based on determination that service was invalid because return of service was facially invalid — Plaintiff met initial burden of establishing validity of service where four corners of return of service contained all elements required by section 48.21(1) — Return of service was not facially invalid because of a minor misspelling in the name of the person served — While a party challenging service may shift the burden back to the party seeking the court’s jurisdiction by presenting a prima facie case demonstrating that the return of service is defective, affidavits presented by defendant’s corporate officers did not challenge the facial validity of the return of service, but the validity of the service itself — Because the burden to prove improper service by clear and convincing evidence had shifted to defendant, and court made no findings as to whether defendant presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumptively valid service or whether the witnesses were credible, the matter is remanded for further proceedings, including a new evidentiary hearing
49 Fla. L. Weekly D614a TIMOTHY GIBSON, Appellant, v. STAR COLLISION AND TOWING, LLC, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D23-1332. March 15, 2024. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the County Court for Hillsborough County; James S. Giardina, Judge. Counsel: Jacquelyn M. Codd and Ramil A. Kaminsky of RAK Law, PLLC, Lakeland, Read More »
Civil procedure — Complaint — Amendments — Addition of party — Appeals — Appeal of order denying plaintiff’s motion to amend her second amended complaint to add an entirely new party is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — Rule 9.110(k) did not provide appellate court with jurisdiction where, although plaintiff also appealed an order granting partial final summary judgment and had filed her motion to amend prior to trial court’s summary judgment ruling, plaintiff’s motion to add a new defendant was not directly related to summary judgment order on appeal — Appellate court lacks jurisdiction under rule 9.130(a)(3) because entire case below has not concluded and an order denying leave to amend to add a defendant is not one of the enumerated nonfinal orders separately appealable under the rule — Plaintiff is not entitled to certiorari relief because she has not shown requisite irreparable harm
49 Fla. L. Weekly D606a SARAH S. SONA, Appellant, v. FOUNDATION SERVICES OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., STONE CREEK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., PULTE HOME COMPANY, LLC, CIRACO UNDERGROUND, INC., ANDREYEV ENGINEERING, INC., et al., Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D22-2558. L.T. Case No. 2020-CA-0026. March 15, 2024. On Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County. 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 »
Insurance — Automobile liability — Bad faith — Action for common law and statutory bad faith filed by insured and personal injury plaintiff alleging that bad faith had occurred when insurer failed to settle personal injury action by declining proposal for settlement which authorized insureds to enter into a consent judgment in excess of the policy limits that would not be recorded or enforced against the insureds, but which made no indication that insurer would be released from any bad faith liability — No error determining that insurer’s refusal to accept proposals for settlement could not form basis of bad faith claim — Discussion of federal court decision in Kropilak v. 21st Century Insurance Co. — An insurer has no duty to enter a consent judgment in excess of the limits of its policy, and does not ordinarily have a duty to pay a claim in excess of a policy’s limit — Trial court erred by entering final judgment in favor of insurer to extent plaintiff’s claims raised other theories of bad faith, such as how insurer handled personal injury plaintiff’s claims against the insured
49 Fla. L. Weekly D458a BENJAMIN D. MARKUSON; ERIK SATERBO; and STEPHEN SATERBO, Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation; CRAWFORD LAW GROUP, P.A., a Florida corporation; and LARRY WALKER, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D21-2443. February 28, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emily A. Peacock, Judge. Read More »