Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

Articles

by

Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Conditions precedent — Residency — Waiver — Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of insurer where it was undisputed that insured did not reside at subject property when loss occurred as the underlying policy required — Reading policy and declaration as a whole, policy was not facially ambiguous based on a failure to identify subject property as the “residence premises” in declaration where policy lists property as the “insured location,” policy defines “insured location” to include “residence premises,” and definition of “residence premises” requires named insured to reside there — Insurer did not waive its right to deny insured’s claims — Insurer’s knowledge that insured had placed property in revocable living trust was not evidence that insurer accepted premiums with knowledge that insured no longer resided at property — Insurer’s initial payment of the claim did not waive its right to later deny coverage where provision at issue was a provision pertaining to coverage and insured did not learn of insured’s lack of residency until after initial payment

50 Fla. L. Weekly D2183a DAN PITTS, as Trustee for REVOCABLE TRUST OF EVELYN PITTS, Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and DRIRITE USA, INC., Appellees. 6th District. Case No. 6D2024-0575. L.T. Case No. 2020CA-003048-0000-00. October 3, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County. Jennifer A. Swenson, Judge. Counsel: Matthew Struble, […]

by

Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Venue — Forum non conveniens — Trial court erred by granting insurer’s motion to transfer venue from Hillsborough County to Polk County based on forum non conveniens — To overcome insured’s venue choice, insurer had to prove Polk County was more convenient forum — Motion to transfer should have been denied where, although lawsuit has obvious ties to Polk County as the county where the property and insureds are located, insurer presented no affidavits or other evidence to establish that it or any witnesses would incur substantial inconvenience or undue expense by litigating in Hillsborough County

50 Fla. L. Weekly D2146b KEVIN SIMEK and FALYNN SIMEK, f/k/a FALYNN SISK, Appellants, v. HERITAGE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2024-2463. October 1, 2025. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Melissa Polo, Judge. Counsel: Sandford B. Kinne and Jeremy D. […]

by

Insurance — Homeowners — Property damage — Verdict — Damages — Remittitur — Trial court erred in denying insurer’s motion for remittitur where the only evidence supporting amount awarded by jury was public adjuster’s estimate which was excluded from evidence after public adjuster admitted that estimate included costs to match undamaged property, which was not covered by the policy — Remand with instructions to issue remittitur of damages to an amount consistent with competent damage estimates from both insurer’s field adjuster and homeowners’ plumbing expert

50 Fla. L. Weekly D2148b UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CALITZA DIAZ-TORRES, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D24-0552. L.T. Case No. 20-23463-CA-01. October 1, 2025. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Tanya Brinkley, Judge. Counsel: Link & Rockenbach, PA, and Kara Rockenbach Link and David A. Noel […]

by

Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Supermarkets — Substance spilled by defendant’s employee after employee had clocked out — Trial court erred by concluding that, as a matter of law, once an employee clocks out from work the employer may no longer be subject to liability — An off-duty employee may reengage in or reenter his employment-related responsibilities depending on the unique facts in a specific case

50 Fla. L. Weekly D2087a JANET WOODS, Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D2024-0493. L.T. Case No. 2021-CA-043262. September 19, 2025. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County. Dale Curtis Jacobus, Judge. Counsel: Brian J. Lee, of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Jack R. Reiter and Sydney […]

by

Insurance — Bad faith — Failure to settle — Excess judgment — Causation — Jury instructions — Verdict form — Action brought by decedent’s estate alleging that insurer breached its duty to act in good faith in the handling of estate’s wrongful death claim against insured and that insurer’s breach resulted in an excess judgment against its insured — Trial court did not err by instructing jury that insurer’s bad faith had to be the cause of the underlying excess judgment and providing verdict form requiring the jury to decide whether such a causal connection existed — In light of binding precedent, causation instruction and verdict question were not legally inaccurate — Jury instruction was not confusing — Court rejects argument that there was a reasonable possibility of confusion because the jury could have found that insured’s negligence, and not insurer’s bad faith, “caused” the excess judgment — While such a discussion between jurors was possible, insured’s negligence was never a focus of evidence or arguments at trial — Given that jury heard insurer’s evidence showing that there were no complaints about insurer’s conduct when it occurred, while the wrongful death suit was ongoing, when the estate settled with another insured under the same policy, or at any point before the excess judgment, it was not unreasonable for the trial court to instruct the jury on causation and focus its attention on whether insurer caused the excess judgment — Court rejects argument that giving of any causation instruction was error because bad faith instruction already encompassed the element of causation plaintiff had to prove — It is not legal error to instruct jury on the legal standard it must apply to resolve a factual dispute the parties put before it

50 Fla. L. Weekly D2087c JANE HANCOCK, as personal representative of the Estate of Joseph N. Hancock, Appellant, v. FLORIDA FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D2024-1484. September 19, 2025. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Kimberly Byrd, Judge. Counsel: Tracy Raffles Gunn of Gunn Appellate Practice P.A., Tampa, […]

The owner of this website has made a commitment to accessibility and inclusion, please report any problems that you encounter using the contact form on this website. This site uses the WP ADA Compliance Check plugin to enhance accessibility.