Abbey Adams Logo

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

Articles

by

Torts — Cruise lines — Negligence — COVID-19 outbreak — Jurisdiction — Forum selection clause — Class action complaint against cruise lines alleging that defendants’ negligence contributed to an outbreak of COVID-19 aboard the cruise ship during transatlantic voyage beginning on March 5, 2020 — District court acted within its discretion when it dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on forum non conveniens grounds because plaintiff’s passage ticket contract included a forum selection clause requiring that all claims associated with his cruise be litigated in a court in Italy — Plaintiff has not presented evidence sufficient to meet his “heavy burden of proof” on his claim that forum selection clause is unenforceable due to unfairness — Even assuming that travel difficulties and risks associated with COVID-19 were unforeseeable at time that plaintiff agreed to forum selection clause, plaintiff has not met his burden of proving that pursuit of his claims in Italy would subject him to fundamental unfairness where he has not established that he would have to travel to Italy in order to pursue his case — Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to establish that forum selection clause in his ticket contract contravenes public policy — Proposition that routine cruise ship forum selection clause is a limitation on shipowner’s liability for negligently caused personal injury that contravenes 46 U.S.C. § 30509(a) is rejected — District court did not abuse discretion by applying the forum non conveniens analysis in its modified, forum-selection-clause form — Forum selection clause is enforceable and applies to plaintiff’s claims

29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C244a PAUL TURNER, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated passengers aboard the Costa Luminosa, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTA CROCIERE S.P.A., COSTA CRUISE LINES, INC., Defendants-Appellees. 11th Circuit. Case No. 20-13666. Non-Argument Calendar. August 19, 2021. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Read More »

by

Venue — Forum non conveniens — Torts — Negligent security — Trial court abused its discretion when, after recognizing that motion to transfer had merit, it denied motion without prejudice because trial court wanted parties to attend non-binding arbitration

46 Fla. L. Weekly D1964a GLORIA S. GRAHAM, as Trustee of the WILLIAM J. GRAHAM TRUST DATED JUNE 16, 1968, et al., Appellants, v. RANDY E. VIRGIL, SR., as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF RANDY E. VIRGIL, JR., et al., Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D21-877. September 1, 2021. Appeal of nonfinal order from Read More »

by

Criminal law — Probation revocation — Order — Correction — Remand for entry of revocation order which conforms with trial court’s oral pronouncement regarding conditions violated

46 Fla. L. Weekly D1942a BOBBY F. YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D20-125. September 1, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; Donald H. Mason, Judge. Counsel: Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Read More »

by

Criminal law — Racketeering — Fraud — Evidence — Experts — Trial court properly excluded all testimony of defendant’s financial forensics expert because it failed to satisfy all three Daubert requirements — Defendant failed to show that any expert’s testimony was admissible even outside the Daubert context — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting expert’s proffer to one hour — Even if trial court erred in limiting proffer, defendant failed to show what testimony was left out — Trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding financial audit reports despite their alleged relevance to show oversight and lending agreements — Audit reports were not relevant to disprove fraudulent activity, and defendant drew no connection from evidence that he loaned money to the victims to any offense alleged by the state

46 Fla. L. Weekly D1929a MARCUS MAY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D18-5153. August 26, 2021. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Thomas V. Dannheisser, Judge. Counsel: William R. Ponall of Ponall Law, Maitland, and Whitney S. Boan of Whitney S. Boan, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Ashley Read More »

by

Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer in action brought by homeowner after insurer denied claim for damage caused by water pouring from roof through ceilings and walls of home on ground that damage was not result of covered peril — There was genuine issue of material fact as to what damaged roof of home and whether opening in roof was created by a windstorm, which was a covered peril

46 Fla. L. Weekly D1877b CARLOS VEGA, Appellant, v. SAFEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D19-2214. L.T. Case No. 16-9441. August 18, 2021. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Giasi Law, P.A., Melissa A. Giasi and Erin M. Berger (Tampa), for appellant. Cole Scott Read More »

The owner of this website has made a commitment to accessibility and inclusion, please report any problems that you encounter using the contact form on this website. This site uses the WP ADA Compliance Check plugin to enhance accessibility.