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

February 12, 2016 by admin

Insurance — Trial court erred in dismissing insureds’ breach of contract action against insurer on basis of counsel’s failure to appear at case management conference without findings that counsel’s failure to appear was flagrant, willful, persistent, or aggravated

41 Fla. L. Weekly D381aTop of Form

Insurance
— Trial court erred in dismissing insureds’ breach of contract action against
insurer on basis of counsel’s failure to appear at case management conference
without findings that counsel’s failure to appear was flagrant, willful,
persistent, or aggravated

DONNA MARIE JENKINS and RAYMOND MURDOCK, Appellants, v.
ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D15-1729. Opinion filed February
10, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Highlands County; Peter F. Estrada,
Judge. Counsel: Alan Medof of Alan Medof & Assoc., PA, Miami, for Appellants.
Ronald L. Arend of Arend & Sisk, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellees.

(SALARIO, Judge.) Donna Marie Jenkins and Raymond Murdock
appeal from an order dismissing without prejudice their complaint for breach of
an insurance contract against Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company
and Allstate Insurance Company. The dismissal was based on the failure of
Jenkins’ and Murdock’s counsel to appear at a case management conference
convened pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.200 and, because a
subsequent action would be barred by the statute of limitations, was
effectively a dismissal with prejudice. Because the trial court failed to make
the legally required findings that counsel’s failure to attend the conference
was flagrant, willful, persistent, or aggravated, we reverse and remand for
further proceedings.

Jenkins and Murdock were involved in a car accident on June
21, 2005, and sought coverage under an insurance policy with Allstate. On July
8, 2005, Allstate informed Jenkins and Murdock that it was denying their claim
for coverage. On July 1, 2010, Jenkins and Murdock filed a complaint for breach
of contract against Allstate, just days before the five-year statute of
limitations on that contract claim would have run. See § 95.11(2), Fla.
Stat. (2005) (providing five-year statute of limitations on claims for breach
of contract). The complaint was followed by several years of litigation.

The record is at a minimum susceptible of the inference that
the litigation was characterized by a lack of diligence by counsel for Jenkins
and Murdock. Counsel served, but did not file, an amended complaint on February
23, 2011. On July 13, 2011, the trial court dismissed that complaint and
granted Jenkins and Murdock twenty days to amend. Counsel missed that deadline
and, without leave of court, failed to file a second amended complaint until
August 20, 2011. In response to a motion to dismiss based on the untimely
filing, counsel filed an affidavit from his paralegal alleging that the failure
to timely respond to the court’s order occurred because the paralegal, whose
wife had recently passed away, had neglected to open mail addressed to counsel.

On January 19, 2012, Jenkins’ and Murdock’s counsel was
suspended from The Florida Bar for sixty days. The record does not reflect why.
On June 20, 2012, after a hearing on Allstate’s motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, the trial court entered an order finding that although all
parties had notice of the hearing, counsel for Jenkins and Murdock failed to disclose
his suspension and resultant inability to appear in court. The trial court
sanctioned counsel for the failure.

On August 28, 2013, Allstate filed a motion to compel
long-overdue answers and objections to interrogatories and responses to
requests for production of documents served on Jenkins and Murdock months
earlier on April 12, 2013. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340(a) (providing that
answers and objections to interrogatories be filed within thirty days after
service); 1.350(b) (providing same for responses to requests for production).
On October 7, 2013, the trial court entered an agreed order granting the motion
and providing Jenkins and Murdock ten additional days to respond. The extent to
which counsel complied with the order is unclear from the record.

On June 2, 2014, the trial court entered a form order
setting a case management conference for July 9, 2014. It stated that “failure
to appear will result in dismissal of the case.” Counsel for Jenkins and
Murdock failed to appear at the conference. Following the case management
conference, the trial court entered a form order that contained a section
providing for dismissal. The trial court checked a box reading that “Defendant
appeared; however, Plaintiff failed to appear. The above styled case is hereby
dismissed without prejudice.” The order contained no other findings.

Counsel filed a verified motion for rehearing, an unverified
motion to vacate the judgment, and a verified motion to vacate the judgment. He
alleged that he had not received notice of the case management conference and
that had he received such notice, he would have appeared as required. Counsel
asked the trial court to issue sanctions against him rather than dismissing the
case as to his clients, because his clients had not been responsible for
counsel’s failure to appear at the case management conference. The trial court
denied all three motions.

Rule 1.200(c) authorizes a trial court to order a case
management conference and to dismiss an action where a party fails to attend
such a conference. However, where a trial court dismisses a suit for failure to
attend a case management conference, its order must “contain findings that the
party’s actions were flagrant, willful, persistent, or otherwise aggravated.” Drakeford
v. Barnett Bank of Tampa
, 694 So. 2d 822, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (citing Clark
v. Sturks
, 668 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)); see also Commonwealth
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Tubero
, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990). A trial
court’s failure to comply with that requirement takes on special significance
where, as here, the expiration of the statute of limitations makes the
dismissal a dismissal with prejudice “for all practical purposes.” See Anthony
v. Schmidtt
, 557 So. 2d 656, 662 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); see also Martinez
v. Collier Cty. Pub. Sch.
, 804 So. 2d 559, 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Although the transcript of the hearing on the motion to
vacate reflects understandable skepticism on the part of the trial court about
counsel’s explanation for his failure to attend the case management conference,
neither the trial court’s form order of dismissal, nor its orders denying
Jenkins’ and Murdock’s postdismissal motions, nor the relevant transcripts
contain findings that the failure to attend was willful, flagrant, persistent,
or otherwise aggravated. Accordingly, we are required to reverse the order
dismissing the case and remand for further proceedings. See Anthony,
557 So. 2d at 662. Our reversal renders Jenkins’ and Murdock’s contention that
they were denied due process moot, and we do not address it.

On remand, the trial court is free to conduct such
proceedings with respect to counsel’s failure to attend the case management
conference, if any, as it sees fit. We express no judgment as to whether the
facts of record or those that might be adduced in proceedings on remand warrant
a dismissal of the action. We note, however, that absent evidence of client
consent to or participation in the attorney’s misconduct, it is typically more
appropriate to sanction an attorney for his failings than to require his
clients to suffer the pains of the attorney’s errors or omissions. See id.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. (ALTENBERND
and KELLY, JJ., Concur.)

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

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