Abbey Adams Logo

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

Articles

by

Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Conditions precedent — Presuit notice — Trial court erred by dismissing insured’s breach of contract action based on insured’s failure to file pre-suit notice under section 627.70152 because policy at issue was purchased prior to statute’s enactment — Discussion of section 627.70152 and supreme court’s decision in Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co. — Section 627.70152 does not apply retroactively to insurance policies entered into before the statute’s effective date because the statute does not include clear evidence of intent to apply retroactively — Even if legislature intended statute to apply retroactively, retroactive application is constitutionally impermissible because section 627.70152 is substantive in nature under precedent of supreme court — Conflict certified

49 Fla. L. Weekly D153a REBECCA HUGHES, Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 6th District. Case No. 6D23-296. L.T. Case No. 2021-CA-002048. November 22, 2023. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County. Elizabeth V. Krier, Judge. Counsel: Raymond T. Elligett, Jr., and Amy S. Farrior, of Buell & Elligett, P.A., Tampa Read More »

by

Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Conditions precedent — Presuit notice — Trial court erred in dismissing action based on insured’s failure to file presuit notice pursuant to section 627.70152 where, although action was filed after statute’s enactment, both the policy’s coverage period and the insured’s loss occurred before the statute’s enactment — Conflict certified

49 Fla. L. Weekly D132a JOHN SULZER and JEANETTE ROBERTS SULZER, Appellants, v. AMERICAN INTEGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, Appellee. 6th District. Case No. 6D23-391. L.T. Case No. 2021CC494. January 8, 2024. Appeal from the County Court for Hendry County. Darrell R. Hill, Judge. Counsel: Paul B. Feltman, of Alvarez, Feltman, Da Silva & Costa, Read More »

by

Attorneys — Discipline — Disbarment — Advertising — Communication with persons represented by counsel — Conduct prejudicial to administration of justice — Referee’s recommendation that attorney be found guilty of multiple advertising rule violations based on unsolicited text messages attorney sent to complainant’s cell phone is approved — Court approves referee’s recommendation that attorney be found guilty of violating rule 4-4.2(a) based on meetings and communications attorney had with his client’s co-defendant who was represented by public defender’s office — Attorney was aware that co-defendant was represented when he met co-defendant at attorney’s office, and, although co-defendant intended on firing his lawyer, he had not yet done so — Referee’s recommendation that attorney be found guilty of violating rule 4-8.4(d) is approved — Attorney violated rule when he engaged in impermissible communication with co-defendant and had co-defendant swear out an affidavit without the benefit of his own lawyer’s advice — Attorney also violated the rule when he immediately filed the affidavit and sought to use it in court proceedings to sever his client’s case from co-defendant’s without communicating with co-defendant’s lawyer — Court disapproves of recommended suspensions — Given totality of attorney’s conduct in the cases under review and his extensive disciplinary history, disbarment is warranted

49 Fla. L. Weekly S5a THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. JONATHAN STEPHEN SCHWARTZ, Respondent. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC2019-0983. THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. JONATHAN STEPHEN SCHWARTZ, Respondent. Case No. SC2021-0484. January 18, 2024. Original Proceeding — The Florida Bar. Counsel: Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Patricia Ann Toro Read More »

by

Torts — Nursing homes — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Under appellate court’s de novo review of evidence, record supports trial court’s order granting leave to amend to add claim for punitive damages pursuant to section 400.0237, Florida Statutes (2021), even though trial court made no affirmative findings in its order or orally at the hearing — Appellate court’s review of trial court’s ruling on motion for leave to amend complaint to assert claim for punitive damages is de novo under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(G) as a non-final order because order under review was rendered and notice of appeal filed after effective date of amendment — Trial court’s failure to make affirmative findings as to where a party may assert a claim for punitive damages, as required by prior binding case law, was harmless

49 Fla. L. Weekly D166a JOHN KNOX VILLAGE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., and LESLY MOMPOINT, as to MAJESTIC OAKS, Appellants, v. ESTATE OF ALMA JANE LAWRENCE, by and through MARIAN K. CASTLEMAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D22-1867. L.T. Case No. 2020-10896-CIDL. January 12, 2024. Nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia Read More »

by

Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Complaint filed less than ten days after filing notice of intent to initiate litigation is premature

FLWSUPP 3109SCAL JOHN SCALISI, Plaintiff, v. SAFE HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Circuit Court, 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County. Case No. 23-CA-000066. August 31, 2023. Michael McHugh, Judge. Counsel: Chad M. Weatherstone, for Plaintiff. Dayana Hernandez, Salehi, Boyer, Lavigne, Lombana, P.A., for Defendant. ORDER ON DEFENDANT’SMOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,ABATE PREMATURE 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.