50 Fla. L. Weekly D2250a BRENDA CORNELIUS, Appellant, v. ARNETTA HAYWOOD, personally and as Personal Representative of the Estate of THOMAS J. KEMP, and ALTAVIA EVANS, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D2024-2185. October 15, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Luis Delgado, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502022CA003768XXXX. […]
Articles
Torts — Premises liability — Trip and fall — Public sidewalk — Dangerous condition — Action brought against Department of Transportation and the contractor who built portion of public sidewalk where plaintiff tripped — Trial court did not err by entering summary judgment in favor of defendants based on conclusion that the less-than-one-inch vertical misalignment in public sidewalk was so open, obvious, and ordinary that it did not constitute a dangerous condition as a matter of law — Trial court properly rejected expert’s opinion that building code applied to public sidewalk at issue where express scope of the code prohibits its application to the right-of-way sidewalk where plaintiff fell, and expert was unable to provide any support for his novel interpretation applying the building code to a public sidewalk unconnected to any building or structure
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2224b NANCY JACKSON, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and FERROVIAL INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D2024-0202. L.T. Case No. 2021-CA-436. October 10, 2025. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Robert M. Dees, Judge. Counsel: Brian J. Lee, of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Hinda […]
Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Windstorm loss — Judgment notwithstanding verdict — Trial court erred by setting aside jury verdict which found that a hurricane created an opening in insureds’ roof that allowed rainwater to enter their residence and that insurer failed to prove the damage was the result of wear and tear — In concluding that neither the homeowners nor their expert specifically identified a specific peril-created opening and that the roof photographs showed no storm-related damage, trial court improperly reweighed conflicting testimony and substituted its own evaluation of the significance of photographic evidence for that of the jury — Competing expert opinions and photographs provided competent substantial evidence from which the jury could conclude that hurricane had created the opening allowing water intrusion — Remand for reinstatement of jury verdict
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2207a LAURA ACOSTA and RUBEN SOLA, Appellants, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D2024-0926. October 8, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; William Haury, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 19-10994. Counsel: Paul B. Feltman of Alvarez, Feltman, Da Silva […]
Civil procedure — New trial — Improper argument — Verdict contrary to manifest weight of evidence — Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial based on comments by opposing counsel during closing arguments — Verdict was not against manifest weight of evidence — Record shows that both parties presented conflicting evidence, and verdict was supported by competent substantial evidence
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2217a HELEN TERAN, et al., Appellants, v. ALEXANDER PILOTO, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D24-0963. L.T. Case No. 19-13322-CA-01. October 8, 2025. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge. Counsel: Morgan & Morgan, P.A., and R. Christopher Rodems (Orlando) and David L. Luck and […]
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Denial of coverage — Rescission of policy — Material misrepresentation on policy application — Garaging address — Summary judgment — Evidence — Hearsay — Examination under oath — Trial court properly determined that sworn examination under oath in which insured admitted that he misrepresented his address on policy application was admissible summary judgment evidence — Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of insurer based on EUO where no evidence was offered disputing insured’s admission — EUO was not inadmissible summary judgment evidence simply because it was made out of court and offered for the truth of the matter asserted where insured’s admitted misrepresentation in EUO could be reduced to admissible form if insured were to testify directly at trial — Admission of EUO did not violate section 92.33, which provides that “[e]very person who shall take a written statement by any injured person with respect to any accident or with respect to any injury to person or property shall, at the time of taking such statement, furnish to the person making such statement a true and complete copy thereof” and further explains that “such a written statement is inadmissible if a copy was not provided to the declarant at the time it was made or if a copy was not provided when requested” — Insured’s EUO was not merely a statement taken by the insurer, but a sworn statement made by insured, with counsel present, transcribed by a court reporter and notary public; and plaintiff has cited no authority holding that such an EUO qualifies as written statement under statute — Even if statute applied, there were no allegations that insurer refused to furnish copy of statement to insured when requested
50 Fla. L. Weekly D2219a UNIVERSAL X RAYS, CORP., a/a/o Miguel Larosa-Ferrer, Appellant, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D24-0777. L.T. Case No. 21-26593-SP-05. October 8, 2025. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Miesha Darrough, Judge. Counsel: Doughlas H. Stein, P.A., and Douglas H. Stein, for appellant. Cole, […]