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
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

November 13, 2015 by admin

Attorney’s fees — Offer of judgment — Invalid offer

40
Fla. L. Weekly D2552a
Top of Form

Attorney’s
fees — Offer of judgment — Invalid offer
 

ANCEL PRATT, JR., Appellant, v. MICHAEL C. WEISS, D.O.,
MICHAEL C. WEISS, D.O., P.A., LOUIS H. ISAACSON, D.O., LOUIS H. ISAACSON, D.O.,
P.A., STERLING HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC., STERLING MIAMI, INC., LAUDERDALE
ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, MICHAEL C. WEISS, D.O., P.A., and FMC HOSPITAL LTD., a
Florida Limited Partnership d/b/a FLORIDA MEDICAL CENTER, FMC MEDICAL, INC.,
f/k/a FMC CENTER INC., d/b/a FLORIDA MEDICAL CENTER, Appellees. 4th District.
Case No. 4D10-4398. November 12, 2015. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jeffrey E. Streitfeld, Judge;
L.T. Case No. 98-11569(19). Counsel: Linda A. Alley of Sheldon J. Schlesinger,
P.A., Fort Lauderdale and Philip M. Burlington and Andrew A. Harris of
Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant. A. Candace
Marcus and James C. Sawran of McIntosh, Sawran & Cartaya, P.A., Fort
Lauderdale, for appellees.

(MAY, Judge.) This case comes to us upon remand from the
Supreme Court of Florida. Pratt v. Weiss, 161 So. 3d 1268 (Fla. 2015).
We previously affirmed a trial court order, in which the trial court found an
offer of judgment complied with the requirements of section 768.79, Florida
Statutes (2004). The supreme court has now quashed our decision and held that
the offer failed to comply with section 768.79 and rule 1.442 of the Florida
Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons expressed in the supreme court’s
decision, we now reverse the trial court order and remand the case for further
proceedings.

Reversed
and Remanded.
(GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.)

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — Attorney’s fees — Trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs in favor of insureds where filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute — Where insurer admitted coverage for damage to interior of home, but denied coverage for damage to roof, the dispute over cause of loss to roof was an amount of loss issue for appraisers, not a coverage issue for court — Where insurer demanded appraisal prior to filing of lawsuit by insured, and indicated that it would repair any damage awarded in appraisal, the filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute over roof damage
  • Insurance — Commercial liability — Exclusions — Assault and battery — Insurer had no duty to defend insured in action alleging injury arising out of assault and battery on insured’s premises where policy contained endorsement excluding coverage for injury arising out of or resulting from assault or battery
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Assignees — No error in finding that appraisal provision of insured’s homeowner’s policy applied to insured’s assignee and granting insurer’s motion to compel appraisal — Policy did not classify appraisal as a duty of the insured — Assignee received an assignment that entitled it to receipt of payment from insurer, and concomitant with that right was its duty to comply with the conditions of the contract that afforded it payment
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Post-loss obligations — Sworn proof of loss — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer after finding that insureds had forfeited their policy coverage for failure to provide a sworn proof of loss — Policy did not eliminate duty of insured to provide sworn proof of loss where insurer opted to repair — However, because insureds complied to some extent with policy requirements, and policy required insurer to prove it was prejudiced by insureds’ failure to provide sworn proof of loss, material issues of fact remain
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Watercraft exclusion — No error in determining that watercraft exclusion in the insureds’ homeowners’ insurance policy precluded coverage for injuries sustained by a third party in a boating accident that occurred when the insured son, who had permission to use the boat from the insured father, allowed another third party to pilot the boat while intoxicated — The only applicable exception to the watercraft exclusion unambiguously states that the watercraft exclusion does not apply if the outboard engine or motor is not owned by an insured, and the boat and engine in this case were owned by the insured father — Severability clause, which provides that the policy “applies separately to each insured,” did not render watercraft exclusion ambiguous — Exceptions to the watercraft exclusion are not dependent on the insured who seeks coverage, but on the nature of the watercraft at issue

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 © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982