50 Fla. L. Weekly D1041a UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. DR. ELIAS CHOUSLEB, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D24-0200. L.T. Case No. 20-3269-CA-01. May 7, 2025. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge. Counsel: Russo Lima Appellate Firm, P.A., Elizabeth K. Russo and Paulo R. Lima, for Read More »
Articles
Insurance — Property — Windstorm loss — Insolvent insured — Florida Insurance Guaranty Association — Limitation of actions — Applicable statutes — No error in granting summary judgment in favor of FIGA on claims that FIGA breached contract and its statutory duties based on its refusal to pay insured’s claims of hurricane damage — Because suit was filed more than five years after hurricane struck, suit was time-barred by policy’s five-year contractual limitation and the five-year statutory time limit in sections 95.11(2)(b) and (2)(e) — Pursuant to section 631.57(1)(b), FIGA was entitled to rely on all defenses available to insolvent insurer, including the statute of limitations — Court rejects argument that, because FIGA was sued for both breach of statutory duty and contractual duty, the applicable statutes of limitation are sections 631.68 and 95.11(5)(d) — Sections 95.11(5)(d) and 631.68 were intended to provide protections against FIGA’s financial liability for claims in addition to other limitation provisions that might apply under section 95.11
50 Fla. L. Weekly D970a CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION OF GOLF VILLAS, II, INC., Appellant, v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, INC., as statutory successor to American Capital Assurance Corp., Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2024-1059. April 30, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Brett M. Waronicki, Judge; L.T. Case Read More »
Torts — Product liability — Discovery — Cell phone inspection — Appeals — Certiorari — Action stemming from injuries plaintiff suffered while riding on transportation device manufactured and sold by defendant — Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by allowing an unfettered search of plaintiff’s phone and the extraction of all data where there was no evidence to suggest plaintiff destroyed evidence or thwarted discovery, and trial court did not find that relevant information was likely to be found on the phone — Discussion of First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Antico v. Sindt Trucking, Inc. — Defendant’s general assertions about people’s tendency to capture and share every aspect of their lives on their phone does not justify such an intrusion into plaintiff’s privacy — While defendant’s inspection protocol permitted plaintiff’s counsel to view the extracted data first for redaction based on privilege, work product, and confidentiality, that safeguard alone was not sufficient to protect plaintiff’s privacy rights
50 Fla. L. Weekly D919b ALEXANDER HALIKOYTAKIS, Petitioner, v. FUTURE MOTION, INC., Respondent. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2024-1499. April 23, 2025. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Helene L. Daniel, Judge. Counsel: Eitan J. Goldrosen of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Orlando, for Petitioner. Michael R. Holt and Ligianette Cordova Read More »
Torts — Automobile accident — Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Claims arising out of series of rear-end collisions purportedly triggered by third driver — Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of third driver — Where third driver filed supporting affidavit refuting her negligence and placing all blame for crash on a phantom driver, it was up to insurer, other codefendants, or plaintiff to raise material facts to avoid summary judgment — Scant negative testimony of witness that “I did not see a phantom vehicle” could not overcome unequivocal positive statement of third driver that she was struck by a phantom vehicle
50 Fla. L. Weekly D935a ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. DAVID W. SCHROEDER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gail S. Schnell, and SUSANA ALCALA, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D2023-3363. April 23, 2025. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County. Gregory S. Parker, Judge. Counsel: Jennifer L. Aybar Read More »
Torts — Automobile accident — Substitution of parties — Death of party — Timeliness of motion — Trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiffs’ case after they failed to timely substitute a party for the defendant who had died — Because a motion to substitute party was not filed within ninety days of suggestion of death, rule 1.260 mandated dismissal — Fact that plaintiffs were proceeding pro se did not relax requirements of the rule
50 Fla. L. Weekly D892c SANELA HAMZA and JASMIN JELEC, Parents and Natural Guardians of A.J., L.J., and S.J., Children, Appellants, v. LINDA MCLEMORE, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D2024-1315. L.T. Case No. 2021-CA-002344. April 17, 2025. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Katie L. Dearing, Judge. Counsel: Sanela Hamza and Jasmin Read More »