46 Fla. L. Weekly D2207a MICHAEL SHELTON, Appellant, v. PASCO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/COMMERCIAL RISK MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D20-3511. October 6, 2021. On appeal from an order of the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims. Edward R. Almeyda, Judge. Date of Accident: February 13, 2008. Counsel: Bill McCabe, Longwood, Read More »
Uncategorized
Workers’ compensation — Independent contractors — Construction industry — Cable installation — Eligibility for benefits — No error in determining that claimant who was injured while installing cable for employer/carrier was ineligible for benefits because he was an independent contractor — Claimant’s installation of residential cable was not “work in the construction industry” which made him an “employee” under the law where the record does not show that claimant was working on or engaged in making a substantial improvement in the use of an existing structure when he sustained his injuries
46 Fla. L. Weekly D2204a VICTOR CABRERA, Appellant, v. KABLELINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC/SEDGWICK CMS and NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D20-736. October 6, 2021. On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Timothy S. Stanton, Judge. Date of Accident: August 24, 2016. Counsel: Michael J. Winer of Winer Law Read More »
Torts — Discovery — It is not a departure from the essential requirements of law to permit discovery regarding the financial relationship between a defendant’s nonparty law firm and an expert witness retained by the defense
46 Fla. L. Weekly S291a STEVEN YOUNKIN, Petitioner, v. NATHAN BLACKWELDER, Respondent. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC19-385. October 14, 2021. Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal Direct Conflict of Decisions/Certified Great Public Importance. Fifth District — Case No. 5D18-3548 (Orange County). Counsel: Kansas R. Gooden, Miami, and Read More »
Insurance — Bad faith — Refusal to settle — Summary judgment in favor of insurer on claimant’s Florida bad faith claim was appropriate because no reasonable jury could conclude that insurer acted in bad faith before, during, or after sending the proposed release to claimant — Overbroad language in insurer’s proposed release, which insurer made clear it was willing to modify and to let claimant’s attorney re-draft the release, did not create a fact question regarding bad faith under totality of circumstances of case, because what came before and after the overbroad release was sent demonstrates that insurer fulfilled its duty to act in good faith — District court aptly concluded that the before, during, and after facts show that insurer “did not act in bad faith in sending the unsolicited proposed release with the tender of the $50,000 BI policy limits under the circumstances of this case” — While an overbroad release can create a jury question about bad faith under Eleventh Circuit law, it “doesn’t necessarily do so” because question of bad faith is determined under totality of circumstances standard, and the scope of a release is only one of circumstances courts consider — Totality of circumstances show how the failure to settle the lawsuit against insureds did not result from bad faith of insurer
29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C383a RAUL A. PELAEZ, as Limited Guardian of the Person and Property of John Poul Pelaez, ward, and Michael Adam Conlon, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. 11th Circuit. Case No. 20-12053. September 20, 2021. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. Read More »
Insurance — 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. C276a 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 »