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
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

Uncategorized

January 14, 2021 by Jennifer Kennedy

Torts — Automobile accident — Discovery — Medical records — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by ordering production of defendant’s medical records without inspecting the records in camera to prevent disclosure of information that is not relevant to the litigation — While some subset of records may be relevant to defendant’s mental capacity at the time of the accident and her current capacity to be deposed, requiring “any and all” records from three years prior through present casts too wide a net

46 Fla. L. Weekly D138a SALLY TANNER and TROPICAL MUSIC SERVICES, INC., Petitioners, v. DANIELLE HART, Respondent. 2nd District. Case No. 2D20-1470. Opinion filed January 8, 2021. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Martha J. Cook, Judge. Counsel: Kansas R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Miami, and Kevin Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

January 14, 2021 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Disinterested appraiser — Contingency-paid appraiser — Insured may not select president of public adjusting firm retained by insured as a disinterested appraiser — Public adjuster that has a contingency interest in an insured’s appraisal award or represents an insured in an appraisal process is not a “disinterested appraiser” under policy’s appraisal provision — Conflict certified

46 Fla. L. Weekly D85a STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. JON PARRISH, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D19-130. January 6, 2021. Appeal from Collier County; Frederick Hart, Judge. Counsel: Kara Rockenbach Link and Daniel M. Schwarz of Link & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach; and Robert A. Kingsford and Lynn S. Alfano of Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

January 14, 2021 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — Work product privilege — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in ordering disclosure of materials prepared and photographs taken by insurer’s adjuster

46 Fla. L. Weekly D168a AVATAR PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. GLADYS MITCHELL, Respondent. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-1515. L.T. Case No. 18-34230. January 13, 2021. A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan S. Fine, Judge. Counsel: Butler, Weihmuller, Katz, Craig, LLP, and Curt L. Allen, Brian A. Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

January 14, 2021 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Discovery — Personal financial records of non-party — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in ordering insured’s appraiser to produce personal financial records which are irrelevant to proceedings

46 Fla. L. Weekly D160a SCOTT THOMAS, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-1459. L.T. Case No. 18-30480. January 13, 2021. A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Abby Cynamon, Judge. Counsel: Agnant & Lambdin LLC, Keith J. Lambdin and Erik J. Willman Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

January 3, 2021 by Jennifer Kennedy

Rules of Civil Procedure — Amendment — Summary judgment — Construction and application of Rule 1.510 in accordance with federal summary judgment standard articulated in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986); and Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986)

46 Fla. L. Weekly S6a IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.510. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC20-1490. December 31, 2020. Original Proceeding — Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. (PER CURIAM.) The Court, on its own motion, amends Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 (Summary Judgment).1 Effective May 1, 2021, the amended Read More »

Filed Under: Uncategorized

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 51
  • Go to page 52
  • Go to page 53
  • Go to page 54
  • Go to page 55
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 60
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — Windstorm loss — Notice of loss — Timeliness — Prejudice to insurer — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer based on determination that insured failed to overcome presumption that insurer was prejudiced by his failure to timely report claim for hurricane damage — Insured failed to act with reasonable dispatch and within a reasonable time where insured waited two years and seven months to report claim of hurricane damage to his roof — Conclusory affidavits submitted by insured in opposition to summary judgment were insufficient to rebut presumption of prejudice where passage of time rendered insurer unable to determine what current damage was directly attributable to the storm — Court rejects argument that policy was ambiguous because it contained a clause imposing a blanket bar on any hurricane-related claim beyond three-year window and a second clause requiring insured to provide prompt notice of any claim — Clauses, when read together, require an insured to file any hurricane-related claim within three years of the storm, and to act swiftly upon discovering damages
  • Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Complaint — Amendment — Addition of claim for punitive damages — Action alleging that insurer violated law by issuing policies without a written rejection form and by accepting verbal rejections of UM coverage — Error to grant insured’s motion for leave to add punitive damages claim where insured failed to provide reasonable basis to find that insurer’s acts occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and were willful, wanton, and malicious and in reckless disregard for insured’s rights
  • Consumer law — Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices — Proposal for settlement — Attorney’s fees — Costs — Prevailing party — Where partial summary judgment as to liability was granted in favor of plaintiff, but jury awarded no damages, it was not an abuse of discretion for trial court to deny defendant’s request for attorney’s fees as a prevailing party on Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim — No error in denying fees and costs under proposals for settlement presented to trial court — None of the proposals proffered satisfied strict requirements of section 768.79 and rule 1.442 where proposals required plaintiff to execute a release but failed to describe release with sufficient detail, contained ambiguity as to punitive damages, and required payment from date of settlement without defining such date — Error to deny request for costs under section 57.041 — A zero judgment constitutes a judgment in favor of the defendant for purposes of recovery of costs under the statute
  • Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Discovery — Relevance — Appeals — Certiorari — Order requiring defendant’s corporate representative to address areas of inquiry related to defendant’s corporate-wide operations is quashed — Allowing corporate-wide discovery amounted to carte blanche discovery that results in irreparable harm and departs from essential requirements of the law — Information is not discoverable based on its relevance to show negligent mode of operation because, under section 768.0755, negligent mode of operation is not a viable theory of recovery in slip-and-fall cases
  • Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Bad faith — Complaint — Amendment — Addition of claim for punitive damages — Action alleging that insurer violated law by issuing policies without a written rejection form and by accepting verbal rejections of UM coverage — Error to grant insured’s motion for leave to add punitive damages claim where insured failed to provide reasonable basis to find that insurer’s acts occurred with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, and were willful, wanton, and malicious and in reckless disregard for insured’s rights

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 © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982