48 Fla. L. Weekly D396a PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Petitioner, v. COLIN ROTH, Respondent. 2nd District. Case No. 2D22-2124. February 17, 2023. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Cynthia J. Newton, Judge. Counsel: Edward G. Guedes of Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., Coral Gables, for Petitioner. Samuel Read More »
Articles
Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — Work product — Claims file — Waiver — Appeals — Certiorari — In breach of contract action where coverage was in dispute, it was a departure from the essential requirements of the law for trial court to compel production of insurer’s claims file materials without conducting an in camera inspection to determine whether there were any relevant documents that would meet standard for production of otherwise privileged documents — Insurer did not waive its work product privilege by putting its pre-suit investigation at issue in its answer when it alleged certain causes of the damage to the home, which would have been part of its investigation
48 Fla. L. Weekly D298b FAMILY SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. JOSHUA H. STEIN and CLAUDIA E. STEIN, Respondents. 4th District. Case No. 4D22-1468. February 8, 2023. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Gary L. Sweet, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432021CA001137CAAXMX. Counsel: Sara Sandler Cromer Read More »
Attorney’s fees — Reasonableness — Evidence — Expert — Fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding expert witness fees to prevailing party where insurer litigated case through summary judgment before filing notice of confession of entitlement to benefits nine months after complaint was filed and challenged the number of compensable hours after agreeing to entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs
48 Fla. L. Weekly D287a UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. MANUEL V. FEIJOO, M.D., and MANUEL V. FEIJOO, M.D., P.A., a/a/o Ernesto Morera, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-396. L.T. Case No. 20-24681 SP. February 8, 2023. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Linda Melendez, Judge. Counsel: Michael J. Neimand, for Read More »
Torts — Negligence — Vicarious liability — Dangerous instrumentality doctrine — Exceptions — Joint adventurers — Action arising out of injuries sustained when rented Bobcat skid-steer loader dropped large object onto plaintiff’s foot, seeking to hold owner of Bobcat directly liable on ground that owner negligently failed to require that operators of its loader be properly trained and vicariously liable for alleged negligent operation of the loader under dangerous instrumentality doctrine — Trial court did not err in entering summary judgment in favor of owner on plaintiff’s direct negligence claim after concluding that owner’s alleged negligent conduct was not proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries — However, it was error to enter summary judgment in favor of owner on vicarious liability claim based on finding that dangerous instrumentality doctrine did not apply because plaintiff was, as matter of law, co-defendant’s joint adventurer in the use of the Bobcat at time of accident — Disputed issues of fact existed as to whether codefendant/operator and plaintiff were jointly operating and controlling the movement of the loader at time of accident and whether plaintiff had equal right to control and direct the operation of the loader
48 Fla. L. Weekly D285a JAMES RANDOLPH HARRIS, Appellant, v. SUNBELT RENTALS, INC., etc., et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-2164. L.T. Case No. 18-792-P. February 8, 2023. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Timothy J. Koenig, Judge. Counsel: McLuskey, McDonald & Hughes, P.A., and John W. McLuskey, for appellant. Wallen Read More »
Torts — Automobile accident — Sanctions — Damages — Additur — New trial — No abuse of discretion in ordering new trial after defendant rejected additur — Trial court did not err in determining that sanctions were warranted where sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s determination that, in first trial and in hearing on the motion for sanctions, defense counsel made intentionally misleading and deceptive statements regarding his prior professional relationship and experiences with one of the physician witnesses, and had utilized improper discovery procedures in an effort to obtain plaintiff’s medical records — Trial court abused its discretion in sanctioning defendant by striking defendant’s pleadings where there was no evidence that defendant participated in defense counsel’s actions, or that plaintiff was prejudiced by defense counsel’s use of improper discovery procedures — Additionally, record does not reflect that defense counsel’s misconduct was sole cause of necessity to grant earlier mistrial — Trial court should have imposed sanctions directly upon counsel
48 Fla. L. Weekly D258b RANDY RHOADES, III, Appellant, v. LILMISSETTE RODRIGUEZ, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D21-2295. L.T. Case No. 2014-CA-25416. Opinion filed February 3, 2023. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Curt Jacobus, Judge. Counsel: Derek J. Angell, of Roper, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Maegen Peek Luka, of Newsome Melton, P.A., Read More »