Abbey Adams Logo

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

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

Articles

January 8, 2023 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Jurors — Peremptory challenge — Race-neutral explanation — Genuineness — No abuse of discretion in determining that plaintiff’s proffered reason for exercising peremptory challenge as to Hispanic female juror was not genuine

48 Fla. L. Weekly D71b AIRAM BULTE, Appellant, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., etc., Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-18. L.T. Case No. 18-38119. January 4, 2023. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mark Blumstein, Judge. Counsel: Schwed, Adams & McGinley, P.A., and Paul M. Adams (Palm Beach Gardens); Burlington & Rockenbach, Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

December 31, 2022 by Jennifer Kennedy

Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Ambiguities — Defendant’s proposal for settlement and release were clear and unambiguous notwithstanding supposed conflicting provisions in proposal and typographical error in general release consisting of use of an asterisk in place of the defendant’s name — Proposal and release stated with particularity relevant conditions and all non-monetary terms, and read as a whole, there were no ambiguities that could have reasonably affected plaintiff’s decision whether to accept proposal — Trial court erred by declining to enforce proposal for settlement

48 Fla. L. Weekly D47a PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Appellant, v. SIERRA ALFORD, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D21-2612. L.T. Case No. 2019-CA-036338-X. December 30, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Dale Curtis Jacobus, Judge. Counsel: Michael R. D’Lugo, of Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Brian J. Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

December 31, 2022 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Premises liability — Trip and fall — Speed bumps — Duty to warn — Negligent maintenance — Action stemming from injuries plaintiff suffered after tripping over an unmarked speed bump at an apartment complex — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of apartment complex — Apartment complex owed no duty to warn where record shows that speed bump was open, obvious, and specifically known to plaintiff — Moreover, plaintiff admitted in deposition that she was not looking directly where she was going — Apartment complex breached no duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition where nothing in record indicates that speed bump was an inherently dangerous condition that would cause injury — Even if speed bump was an inherently dangerous condition that would cause injury, speed bump was so open and obvious that apartment complex could reasonably expect plaintiff to protect herself from any purported danger

47 Fla. L. Weekly D2620a EILEEN SMITH, Appellant, v. WESTDALE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LTD. d/b/a ANGEL COVE APARTMENT HOMES, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D22-231. December 12, 2022. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Coleman Lee Robinson, Judge. Counsel: Michael E. Fenimore of Michael E. Fenimore, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant. Michael R. D’Lugo Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

December 31, 2022 by Jennifer Kennedy

Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Trial court abused its discretion in denying motion for rehearing of order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in contract dispute, entered after defendant on three occasions filed last-minute motion for continuance of hearings on plaintiff’s motion, where evidence submitted by defendant by affidavit prior to summary judgment hearing indicating that he exercised his right to cancel in accordance with provision on face of contract established existence of material factual issue

47 Fla. L. Weekly D2636a YURGAL PASCAL, Appellant, v. BROWARD WATER CONSULTANTS, INC., etc., Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-727. L.T. Case No. 17-22406 CC. December 14, 2022. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Diana Gonzalez-Whyte, Judge. Counsel: Yurgal Pascal, in proper person. Schneider Law Firm, P.A., and Leslie Mark Schneider (Fort Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

December 22, 2022 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Premises liability — Trip and fall — Speed bumps — Duty to warn — Negligent maintenance — Action stemming from injuries plaintiff suffered after tripping over an unmarked speed bump at an apartment complex — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of apartment complex — Apartment complex owed no duty to warn where record shows that speed bump was open, obvious, and specifically known to plaintiff — Moreover, plaintiff admitted in deposition that she was not looking directly where she was going — Apartment complex breached no duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition where nothing in record indicates that speed bump was an inherently dangerous condition that would cause injury — Even if speed bump was an inherently dangerous condition that would cause injury, speed bump was so open and obvious that apartment complex could reasonably expect plaintiff to protect herself from any purported danger

47 Fla. L. Weekly D2620a EILEEN SMITH, Appellant, v. WESTDALE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LTD. d/b/a ANGEL COVE APARTMENT HOMES, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D22-231. December 12, 2022. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Coleman Lee Robinson, Judge. Counsel: Michael E. Fenimore of Michael E. Fenimore, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant. Michael R. D’Lugo Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 343
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — Windstorm loss — Notice of loss — Timeliness — Prejudice to insurer — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer based on determination that insured failed to overcome presumption that insurer was prejudiced by his failure to timely report claim for hurricane damage — Insured failed to act with reasonable dispatch and within a reasonable time where insured waited two years and seven months to report claim of hurricane damage to his roof — Conclusory affidavits submitted by insured in opposition to summary judgment were insufficient to rebut presumption of prejudice where passage of time rendered insurer unable to determine what current damage was directly attributable to the storm — Court rejects argument that policy was ambiguous because it contained a clause imposing a blanket bar on any hurricane-related claim beyond three-year window and a second clause requiring insured to provide prompt notice of any claim — Clauses, when read together, require an insured to file any hurricane-related claim within three years of the storm, and to act swiftly upon discovering damages
  • Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Complaint — Amendment — Addition of claim for punitive damages — Action alleging that insurer violated law by issuing policies without a written rejection form and by accepting verbal rejections of UM coverage — Error to grant insured’s motion for leave to add punitive damages claim where insured failed to provide reasonable basis to find that insurer’s acts occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and were willful, wanton, and malicious and in reckless disregard for insured’s rights
  • Consumer law — Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices — Proposal for settlement — Attorney’s fees — Costs — Prevailing party — Where partial summary judgment as to liability was granted in favor of plaintiff, but jury awarded no damages, it was not an abuse of discretion for trial court to deny defendant’s request for attorney’s fees as a prevailing party on Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim — No error in denying fees and costs under proposals for settlement presented to trial court — None of the proposals proffered satisfied strict requirements of section 768.79 and rule 1.442 where proposals required plaintiff to execute a release but failed to describe release with sufficient detail, contained ambiguity as to punitive damages, and required payment from date of settlement without defining such date — Error to deny request for costs under section 57.041 — A zero judgment constitutes a judgment in favor of the defendant for purposes of recovery of costs under the statute
  • Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Discovery — Relevance — Appeals — Certiorari — Order requiring defendant’s corporate representative to address areas of inquiry related to defendant’s corporate-wide operations is quashed — Allowing corporate-wide discovery amounted to carte blanche discovery that results in irreparable harm and departs from essential requirements of the law — Information is not discoverable based on its relevance to show negligent mode of operation because, under section 768.0755, negligent mode of operation is not a viable theory of recovery in slip-and-fall cases
  • Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Complaint — Amendment — Addition of claim for punitive damages — Action alleging that insurer violated law by issuing policies without a written rejection form and by accepting verbal rejections of UM coverage — Error to grant insured’s motion for leave to add punitive damages claim where insured failed to provide reasonable basis to find that insurer’s acts occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and were willful, wanton, and malicious and in reckless disregard for insured’s rights

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982