49 Fla. L. Weekly D504d ROSEMARY ARWAY, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 6th District. Case No. 6D23-399. L.T. Case No. 21-CA-000533. March 1, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Keith R. Kyle, Judge. Counsel: Alexander L. Brockmeyer, Thomas E. Shepard, and Gregory L. Evans, of Boyle, Leonard & Anderson, P.A., Read More »
Articles
Torts — Premises liability — Argument — New trial — No error in granting motion for new trial based on statement defense counsel made during closing argument which was false, highly prejudicial and inflammatory, violative of prior court order, and not curable — Referral to Florida Bar
49 Fla. L. Weekly D498a NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANT PARTNERS FLORIDA, LLC, Appellant, v. KIRK B. WOLFF, as PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE of the ESTATE of PETER WOLFF, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D22-1029. L.T. Case No. 05-2020-CA-012922. March 1, 2024. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County. George Paulk, Judge. Counsel: G. Jeffrey Vernis and Isam Read More »
Torts — Premises liability — Supermarkets — Slip and fall — Transitory substance — Knowledge of dangerous condition — Summary judgment — No error in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant based on determination that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether defendant had constructive notice of clear liquid on the floor which caused plaintiff to slip and fall — Surveillance video showing multiple customers standing, walking, and pushing carts through exact spot where liquid was found in the nine minutes between when defendant’s employee left the area and the incident, combined with the deposition testimony of that employee, did not support a permissible inference that condition existed for a sufficient length of time to establish that defendant had constructive notice — Although a jury could choose to disbelieve employee’s unequivocal testimony that he would have noticed liquid if it was on the floor, that is not enough to survive summary judgment
49 Fla. L. Weekly D436b SANDRA LEFTWICH, Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP and THOMAS SCHOENDORF, Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D22-2821. L.T. Case No. 2020-CA-0370. February 22, 2024. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County. Donald Scaglione, Judge. Counsel: Brian J. Lee, of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Andrew S. Bolin Read More »
Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Inconsistent verdict — Action alleging that insurer had breached insurance contract by failing to cover damages to insured’s dock — Trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of insured where, despite entering an amount for the actual cash value of the dock on the verdict form, jury found that insurer had established that the loss was not covered by the policy — Jury’s verdict was not legally inconsistent where question on verdict form asking jury the cost to repair dock at actual cash value presented a limited inquiry directed to a factual matter and did not, on its face, assign liability to insurer for the cost of repair or ask jury to determine amount of damages owed to insured
49 Fla. L. Weekly D433a UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. PARIS TSIRNIKAS, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D22-3539. February 23, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Keith Meyer, Judge. Counsel: Andrew A. Labbe of Groelle & Salmon, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Charles M. Schropp of Schropp Law Firm, P.A., Read More »
Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Conditions precedent — Presuit notice — No error in dismissing insureds’ breach of contract action based on insureds’ failure to provide written presuit notice of intent to initiate litigation as required by section 627.70152(3), despite the fact that policy was issued before the effective date of the statute — Because subsection 627.70152(1) applies the statute to “all suits” arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy, and because subsection 627.70152(3) serves as a condition precedent to filing a suit under a property insurance policy, the statute contains a clear legislative intent to apply retroactively to all claims regardless of when a policy was issued — Additionally, retroactive application of statute was not improper because the presuit notice requirement is procedural, not substantive, in nature — Conflict certified
49 Fla. L. Weekly D360a FERNANDO CANTENS and ANA MARIE CANTENS, Appellants, v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON, etc., Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-0917. L.T. Case No. 21-27680 CC. February 14, 2024. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael G. Barket, Judge. Counsel: Your Insurance Attorney, PLLC, and Joshua R. Lopez Read More »