50 Fla. L. Weekly D2301a NATASHA ABNER, etc., Appellant, v. LYFT FLORIDA, INC., etc., et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D24-0479. L.T. Case No. 18-354-CA-01. October 22, 2025. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge. Counsel: Gerson & Schwartz, P.A., and Edward S. Schwartz and Philip M. Gerson, Read More »
Articles
Wrongful death — Negligent hiring — Motor carriers — Brokers — Vicarious liability — Federal preemption — Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act — Safety exception — Action brought against broker who contracted with motor carrier which allegedly caused fatal tractor-trailer accident — Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on estate’s claims that defendant broker negligently selected the motor carrier and was vicariously liable for the motor carrier’s negligence based on determination that claims were federally preempted by FAAAA — Discussion of the FAAAA, express preemption, and the “safety exception” — In absence of controlling authority the district court holds that, while tort claims against a broker fall within the preemption language of the FAAAA, the safety exception exempts those claims from preemption if the facts support a finding of liability — Trial court erred in concluding that safety exception did not apply to brokers based on determination that negligence claims against a broker are not “with respect to motor vehicles” — Plaintiff’s negligence and vicarious liability claims have requisite connection with motor vehicles because they arise out of a motor vehicle accident and fall squarely within the “safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles” — Plain language of safety exception does not require a “direct” connection to motor vehicles to be applicable
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2269a LYNN JOSEPH SIMON, JR., as personal representative of the Estate of Matthew Joseph Simon, deceased, Appellant, v. COYOTE LOGISTICS, LLC; ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, LLC; JOSE M. NIEVEROLDAN; IRIZARRY RIVERA; ANEPHNA TRANSPORT, INC.; and FAISAN TRANSPORT CORP., Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2023-2775. October 22, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Read More »
Insurance — Homeowners — All-risks policy — Roof — Coverage — Directed verdict — Trial court erred by granting insurer’s motions for directed verdict based on conclusion that insurer had paid the actual cash value of the loss as required by policy in the amount of the only actual cash value estimate, and that no further payment was required because no additional work was performed or expenses incurred — Trial court erred in finding that insureds’ estimate was not an ACV estimate because it included costs for matching roof tiles, costs incidental to the repair and construction process, and costs for compliance with the building code’s 25% rule — Because policy at issue contains ordinance and law coverage which required insurer to cover costs incurred as a result of any ordinance that requires them to replace “the portion of the undamaged part of a covered building,” and there was evidence presented that building code required full roof replacement, trial court should have accepted insureds’ estimate as an ACV estimate — Parties’ disputes regarding scope of home damage, percentage of the roof that was damaged, and the cost to repair the damages were factual disputes that should have been submitted to the jury — Trial court erred in finding that, once insurer paid ACV for the loss, less the deductible, it was not required to make any further payments because the insureds did not begin to replace their roof before filing suit — Where an insurer denies coverage entirely, neither the policy nor section 627.7011 prevents an insured from seeking damages for breach of contract — Court rejects argument that, in order to recover for roof replacement, insured must first pay for the full roof replacement and provide a copy of their payment to insurer — Trial court erred in finding that insurer had satisfied its obligations under policy because insureds did not provide insurer with acceptable estimate — Because policy did not require insureds to provide an ACV estimate and insured undisputedly provided insurer with an estimate for repairs, insureds satisfied their obligations prior to filing suit
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2307a CLIFTON WESTON and VALONA WESTON, Appellants, v. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2024-1340. October 24, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Alicia Polk, Judge. Counsel: Barbara M. Hernando, Dean Makris and Gabriel F. Torre of Makris & Mullinax, P.A., Tampa, for Read More »
Attorney’s fees — Hours expended — Hourly rate — Reasonableness — Appeals — Preservation of issue — Judgment awarding attorney’s fees against appellant without including factual findings required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe is affirmed — Because appellant did not file a motion for rehearing under rule 1.530 challenging the lack of factual findings, claim was not preserved for appellate review — Rowe’s required factual findings in attorney’s fees final judgments are “findings of fact” under rule 1.530(a) as amended in 2023
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2315a DAVID PLATT, Appellant, v. CAPE MARINE SERVICES, INC., d/b/a Cape Marina, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D2024-2990. L.T. Case No. 05-2022-CC-27213. October 24, 2025. On appeal from the County Court for Brevard County. Kenneth Friedland, Judge. Counsel: Serena Kurtz, of Kubicki Draper, Tampa, for Appellant. Eric L. Hostetler and Scott Read More »
Insurance — Coverage — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — No error in determining that insurer was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to its proposal for settlement — Proposal was enforceable where indemnification provision was not ambiguous and did not conflict with release — Amount — Hearing — Trial court violated insured’s due process rights by entering monetary award for fees where amount of award was not noticed to be heard at hearing on issue of entitlement to fees
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2278b HENRY VEGA, Appellant, v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2024-1397. October 22, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jeffrey R. Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-17-007442. Counsel: Melissa A. Giasi of Giasi Law, P.A., Tampa, for appellant. Maureen G. Read More »