49 Fla. L. Weekly D914a JOSE DURAN, Appellant, v. CRAB SHACK ACQUISITION, FL, LLC, d/b/a JOE’S CRAB SHACK, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D2022-2823. L.T. Case No. 2018-31181-CICI. April 25, 2024. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County. Mary G. Jolley, Judge. Counsel: Chad A. Barr, of Chad Barr Law, Altamonte Springs, for […]
Articles
Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Coverage — Damages — In the absence of a judicial determination of bad faith, trial court erred in entering judgment against insurer for net amount of jury verdict that exceeded policy limits while limiting execution on the judgment to the policy limits — Discussion of supreme court’s decision in Fridman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois — Trial courts may reference the net verdict amount as the measure of damages should an insured ultimately prevail on a bad faith claim, but may not enter a judgment in that amount — Error to award post-judgment interest on net verdict amount because insured is not presently entitled to be paid that amount and may never be so entitled unless insured brings and prevails on bad faith claim
49 Fla. L. Weekly D845e STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CHARLES FINSON, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2022-2280. April 17, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Cynthia Newton, Judge. Counsel: Warren B. Kwavnick of Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant. Brian J. Lee of Morgan & Morgan, […]
Real property — Deed — Rescission — Fraud — New trial — Inconsistent verdict — Trial court abused its discretion by granting plaintiff a new trial based on determination that verdict was internally inconsistent because some jurors were confused about verdict entered in favor of defendant and claimed that verdict rendered did not reflect jury’s intent — Jury’s finding that plaintiff had proved his rescission claim was not at odds with jury’s finding that defendants had proved their statute of limitations defense — Jury’s rejection of defendants’ other defenses was, likewise, not at odds with its finding that proven rescission claim was barred by applicable limitations period — As a matter of law, any misunderstanding or confusion jurors may have had at arriving at their collective verdict is inherent in jury’s internal deliberative process, which may not be challenged after verdict is rendered
49 Fla. L. Weekly D856a BLUE WATER COAST SERVICES, LLC and JACQUELINE HYATT, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. DWIGHT MAIZE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. 4th District. Case No. 4D2022-2522. April 17, 2024. Appeal and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; David A. Haimes, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE16-017402. Counsel: Donna Greenspan Solomon of Solomon Appeals, […]
Arbitration — Award — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Timeliness of motion — Successor judge erred by granting motion to clarify a nearly three-year-old final judgment and awarding appellees attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 682.15 based on finding that, because final judgment had granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment which had included a request for attorney’s fees, no additional notice or motion for seeking fees was required — Appellees were required to comply with the time requirements of rule 1.525 — No exception to the rule applied where final judgment contained no specific finding of entitlement to fees, and it did not reserve jurisdiction to address the matter — Court rejects argument that such language was unnecessary because final judgment granted all relief requested — Language of final judgment does not reflect such a broad finding — Fact that fees and costs were not mentioned in summary judgment hearing further supports conclusion that final judgment did not award entitlement to fees and costs — Final judgment could not be amended or altered to reflect an award of fees and costs pursuant to rule 1.530 or 1.540(b) because appellees’ motion to clarify was untimely — Judgment could not be amended pursuant to rule 1.540(a) because the failure to specifically determine entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs is not a clerical mistake
49 Fla. L. Weekly D850a LYONS HERITAGE OF TAMPA, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellant, v. OLUROTIMI PHILLIPS and JACQUELINE PHILLIPS, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2023-1313. April 17, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, Judge. Counsel: Timothy Brown and Adam Bild of Bild Law, Lutz, for Appellant. […]
Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Amount — Contingency fee multiplier — Application of contingency risk multipler was not supported by competent substantial evidence demonstrating that relevant market required the application of a multiplier to incentivize effective counsel to undertake representation of plaintiff in action alleging that defendant violated Florida Consumer Practices Act and seeking declaration that defendant placed illegitimate lien on plaintiff’s worker’s compensation settlement proceeds — Remand solely for trial court to enter judgment that does not include application of the contingency fee multiplier
49 Fla. L. Weekly D887a FOOT & ANKLE CENTER OF FLORIDA, LLC, Appellant, v. CARLOS VARGAS, IV, Appellee. 6th District. Case No. 6D23-665. L.T. Case No. 2021-CA-002428. April 19, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County. Lauren L. Brodie, Judge. Counsel: Christopher DeCosta, of Mahshie & DeCosta P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellant. Jordan […]