29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C1111a MICHAEL GULISANO, Interested Party-Appellant, CATHY COHEN, Plaintiff, v. BURLINGTON, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 11th Circuit. Case No. 20-12660. May 12, 2022. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 9:18-cv-81420-BB). (Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.) (JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge.) When attorney Michael Gulisano Read More »
Articles
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Insured prevailing in action against insurer — Lodestar — Contingency risk multiplier — Lodestar figure was not supported by competent substantial evidence where fee expert admitted that he did not conduct line-item analysis of time records as required, but simply reduced hours billed by 7.5 percent with no proffered rationale for this reduction — Further, trial court did not make specific findings as to its determination of number of hours reasonably expended, but instead applied an arbitrary, across-the-board cut of 15 percent — Multiplier — Application of contingency risk multiplier was unsupported by competent substantial evidence regarding counsel’s ability to mitigate risk of nonpayment — Lodestar amount and application of multiplier reversed — Remand with instructions to reduce number of hours billed to specific number that was supported by competent substantial evidence adduced by insurer’s fee expert
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1086b CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON, Appellant, v. RONIEL CANDELARIA and AMELIA PADURA, Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-871. L.T. Case No. 18-21672. May 18, 2022. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Martin Zilber, Judge. Counsel: Sastre Saavedra & Epstein, PLLC, and Michael Sastre, for appellant. Alvarez, Feltman, Read More »
Insurance — Professional liability — Duty to defend — Summary judgment — Action seeking declaration that insurer had duty to defend insured law firm in RICO action filed against it — Trial court erred by entering summary judgment in favor of insured on duty to defend without addressing all of insurer’s affirmative defenses and counterclaim for rescission of policy where declaratory relief and rescission claims were interrelated
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1084b IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP, and TERRENCE P. COLLINGSWORTH, Individually and as Agent of CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D21-784. May 18, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Keathan B. Frink, Judge; L.T. Case Read More »
Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Declaratory judgment — Dismissal — With prejudice — Action stemming from insurer’s denial of claim for damage allegedly caused by hurricane based on insurer’s determination that physical loss was caused by “wear and tear,” “marring” or “deterioration” and was thus excluded under policy — Error to dismiss second amended complaint with prejudice on bases that complaint failed to state a cause of action for declaratory relief, there was no ambiguous policy language requiring construction, and that insureds had an adequate remedy at law — Insureds satisfied the pleading requirements necessary to seek declaratory relief — Declaratory relief is not contingent on existence of purportedly ambiguous policy language — Declaratory relief is available to resolve questions concerning the application of unambiguous policy provisions to a disputed set of facts — Additionally, the existence of another adequate remedy at law does not preclude a judgment for declaratory relief
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1079a LUZ CINTRON and AGUSTINE CINTRON, Appellants, v. EDISON INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D21-1334. May 18, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emmett L. Battles, Judge. Counsel: William D. Mueller, Elliot B. Kula, and W. Aaron Daniel, of Kula & Associates, P.A., Miami; and Andres Read More »
Insurance — Commercial property — Coverage — Business losses — Business interruption — All-risk commercial policy providing coverage for “direct physical loss of or damage to” property or “direct physical loss or damage to” property does not insure against losses and expenses incurred by business as result of COVID-19 — Under Florida law there is no coverage because COVID-19 did not cause tangible alteration of the insured properties
29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C1084a SA PALM BEACH, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON, UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDSLONDON KNOWN AS SYNDICATES CNP 4444, AFB 2623, AFB 623, BRT, 2987, BRT 2988, NEO 2468, SAM 727, AXS1686, XIS H4202, QBE 1886, DUW 1729, WBC 5886, Read More »