46 Fla. L. Weekly D1942b UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. STAND-UP MRI OF MIAMI, INC., a/a/o Omaira Perez, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-71. L.T. Case Nos. 09-333 SP; 19-310 AP. September 1, 2021. An appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Linda Diaz, Judge. Counsel: Michael J. Neimand, for appellant. George A. Read More »
Articles
Attorney’s fees — Offer of judgment — Judgment obtained — Post-offer prejudgment interest is excluded from the “judgment obtained” that is compared to a rejected settlement offer when determining entitlement to attorney’s fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes
46 Fla. L. Weekly S259a CCM CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. PETRI POSITIVE PEST CONTROL, INC., etc., Respondent. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC19-861. September 9, 2021. Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal Certified Great Public Importance/Certified Direct Conflict of Decisions. Fourth District – Case No. 4D18-1290 Read More »
Torts — Automobile accident — Attorney’s fees — Offer of judgment — Judgment obtained — Calculation — Taxable costs — Trial court erred in determining that plaintiff was entitled to recover attorney’s fees under section 768.79 because the court miscalculated the “judgment obtained” by including preoffer costs that were not taxable on date plaintiff’s proposal for settlement was served — Fees plaintiff prepaid for expert depositions were not taxable where neither expert’s deposition had been taken when the proposal was served — While expert deposition fees could have been taxed in trial court’s discretion if plaintiff had established that it was necessary to prepay the deposition fee in order to get on expert’s schedule and that payment was nonrefundable, plaintiff did not establish that here
46 Fla. L. Weekly D1972b The Estate of ELFRIEDE Z. SWEENEY, deceased, and STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellants, v. GLORIA R. WASHINGTON, Appellee. 2nd District. Case Nos. 2D20-1848 & 2D20-2520 (Consolidated). September 3, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; John M. Radabaugh and Gerald P. Hill, II, Judges. Counsel: DeeAnn J. Read More »
Attorney’s fees — Justiciable issues — Claim or defense not supported by material facts or applicable law — Appeals — Absence of transcript — Error to grant attorney’s fees as a sanction pursuant to section 57.105(1) — Despite lack of transcript, reversal is required where trial court failed to make specific written findings regarding the factors required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe — In addition to lack of necessary findings, trial court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the amount of fees in the absence of waiver or stipulation
46 Fla. L. Weekly D1974a FELIZ SOTO, Appellant, v. CARROLLWOOD VILLAGE PHASE III HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; THE GREENS OF TOWN ‘N COUNTRY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit corporation; CITI FINANCIAL HOLDING TRUST, LLC; and ASSOCIA GULF COAST, INC., Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D20-1944. September 3, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough Read More »
nsurance — Liability — Duty to defend or indemnify — Action by insurer seeking declaration that, based on policy provisions, it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured for original or amended state court complaint against insured or the state court consent judgment that had been entered against its insured on state-court plaintiff’s claims for damages allegedly resulting from insured’s negligent performance of duties undertaken as manager of state-court plaintiff’s citrus groves — Counterclaims by state-court plaintiff alleging breach of contract based on insurer’s refusal to defend and indemnify its insured and a declaration that state court consent judgment was enforceable against insurer — District court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer on all claims and counterclaims — Because insurance policy excluded coverage for the damages alleged in the amended state court complaint, insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify, and consent judgment entered based on Coblentz agreement between state-court plaintiff and insured was unenforceable for that reason — Under Florida law, insurer’s duty to defend arises when complaint alleges facts that fairly and potentially bring suit within policy coverage — Damage to citrus groves fell within policy’s exclusion for property damage to “[t]hat particular part of real property on which you . . . are performing operations, if the ‘property damage’ arises out of these operations” — Exclusion applied to policy’s “farm care-taker” endorsement — Taken together, endorsement and exclusion meant that coverage extended to property damage caused by insured’s farm care-taker operations, but not if the damage was to real property, such as citrus groves
29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C276aI THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD MCKENZIE & SONS, INC., HERMANNS REAL ESTATE VENTURES, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. 11th Circuit. Case No. 18-13172. August 26, 2021. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 8:17-cv-02106-SDM-CPT). (Before BRANCH, TJOFLAT, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.) Read More »