50 Fla. L. Weekly D2496a AUSTIN TYLER ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. ELICIA ANTOINE and KONOPKA SERVICES, INC., Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D2025-0851. November 19, 2025. Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Bradley G. Harper, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502023CA013305. Counsel: Bonnie M. Sack and Daniel Read More »
Uncategorized
Insurance — Homeowners — Property loss — Coverage — Denial — Noncompliance with residency requirement — Waiver of defense — Trial court erred in denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict where undisputed evidence established that homeowner did not live at property as policy required — Trial court erred in submitting to jury the homeowner’s theory that insurer waived residency requirement by accepting premiums from homeowners after learning that homeowner did not live at property — Coverage cannot be created by waiver
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2488h UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. BONIFACE JEAN, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2024-1257. November 19, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Mark A. Speiser, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-22-018547. Counsel: David A. Noel and Kara Rockenbach Link of Link & Read More »
Insurance — Property — Coverage — Loss payment — Action claiming that insurer breached loss payment provision of policy by failing to pay settlement agreement within twenty days as required by policy and section 627.4265, and by failing to include late-payment interest — Trial court did not err by entering judgment on the pleadings in favor of insurer where insured alleged only a breach of the policy, not a breach of release or settlement agreement — Because insured signed broad release which discharged interest-payment right that insured possessed under the policy, any subsequent claim about the timeliness and sufficiency of insurer’s settlement payment could only arise from a breach of the release and settlement agreement — Declaratory relief on the issue of whether insured breached an implied § 627.4265-timeliness requirement within the policy is not available because the terms of the policy no longer govern the matter
MICHAEL KAISER, Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D2024-0884. November 19, 2025. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. James Lee Marsh, Judge. Counsel: Adam Abraham Schwartzbaum of Edelsberg Law, Miami; Scott Adam Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law, Aventura; Andrew John Shamis of Shamis & Gentile, P.A., Miami; Edwin Read More »
Civil rights — Discrimination — Discovery — Emails — Attorney-client privilege — Work product — Appeals — Certiorari — In discrimination action brought against state agency, trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by ordering the disclosure of all requested agency emails based on determination that none were protected by asserted attorney-client privilege or work product because the agency attorney who made or received the emails was acting as a de facto human resources officer — Trial court’s decision was improperly based on broad observation of attorney’s role within the agency rather than individualized consideration of documents at issue and their context — Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by alternatively ruling that, even if emails qualified as work product, production was required because there was no way “information could be replicated” — Nothing in record established that disclosure of agency’s privileged communications was permissible under rule 1.280
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2485b FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, Petitioner, v. ANGELA JOHNSON, Respondent. 1st District. Case No. 1D2024-0549. November 19, 2025. Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Original Jurisdiction. Counsel: J. Craig Knox, Surama Suarez, and Riley Landy of Andrews, Crabtree, Knox & Longfellow, LLP, Tallahassee, for Petitioner. Ashley N. Richardson of Marie Read More »
Attorney’s fees — Charging lien — Offer of judgment — Entitlement to fees — Motion to enforce charging lien filed by former counsel following settlement in underlying insurance dispute — After granting plaintiff’s motion to discharge charging lien, trial court did not err by denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs under section 768.79 based on former counsel’s rejection of plaintiff’s offers of judgment — Section 768.79 does not apply to a non-party’s action to enforce an equitable charging lien — A charging lien proceeding is not “a civil action for damages” as required by statute — Court rejects argument that former counsel satisfied party requirement of statute because former counsel were “parties” to the ancillary proceeding — Furthermore, statute requires a “defendant” to propound an offer of judgment, and plaintiff has always been a plaintiff in the proceeding — Even if, as plaintiff argued, ancillary proceeding’s nature changed plaintiff’s role to “de facto defendant,” plain language of statute makes no provision for a “de facto plaintiff” or a “de facto defendant” in an ancillary proceeding
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2475c MASSEY CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. a/a/o ARTHUR CARLSON and CAROL CARLSON, Appellant, v. ALEX FINCH, P.A. d/b/a FINCH LAW FIRM and FROMANG & FINCH P.A., Appellees. 6th District. Case No. 6D2024-1029. L.T. Case No. 20-CA-002296. November 14, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Michael T. McHugh, Judge. Counsel: Read More »