49 Fla. L. Weekly D203a LARRY D. SMITH, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joan Smith, Appellant, v. CARLISLE INDUSTRIAL BRAKE & FRICTION, INC., Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D2021-2753. January 17, 2024. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County. Michael A. Flowers, Judge. Counsel: Mathew D. Gutierrez, The Ferraro Law Firm, […]
Articles
Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Argument — New trial — Action involving insured who had been seeking past medical expenses throughout trial before withdrawing that claim the day before closing arguments — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying insurer’s motion for new trial alleging that insured’s closing argument statement that, because insured was not seeking past medical expenses, insured’s medical experts did not have a “dog in the fight” had made jurors think that insurer misled them about the financial interests of insured’s witnesses and eviscerated insurer’s theme of the entire case, which was based on the bias and credibility of insured’s medical experts — Even if comments were misleading, comments were isolated and not so highly prejudicial and inflammatory that they deprived insurer of a fair trial
49 Fla. L. Weekly D217a STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CORA MATTHEWS, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D22-1190. L.T. Case No. 2015-CA-000533. January 19, 2024. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Flagler County. Christopher A. France, Judge. Counsel: Warren B. Kwavnick, of The Law Office of Warren B. Kwavnick, PLLC, Pembroke […]
Civil procedure — Substitution of parties — Death of party — Trial court erred by dismissing complaint based on finding that plaintiff had failed to file a motion for substitution within 90 days of suggestion of death filed by defense counsel — Plaintiff’s motion to appoint a guardian ad litem, an administrator ad litem, and an attorney ad litem to represent defendant’s interests, which was filed within 90 days of suggestion of death, was a motion for substitution under rule 1.260(a)(1) — Plaintiff was not required to label motion a “motion for substitution” — A request to appoint someone to represent the interests of the deceased defendant is all rule requires
49 Fla. L. Weekly D195e DAVID GREEN, Appellant, v. RENEE POLUKOFF and ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D2022-2818. January 17, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Paige Hardy Gillman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502017CA009385XXXXMB. Counsel: Carl A. Cascio and Gary S. Gaffney of Carl […]
Insurance — Property — Coverage — Summary judgment — Final summary judgment was appropriately granted to insureds on breach of contract claim based on home damages, including unusable bathroom, where there was no triable issue of fact — Insureds offered testimony that toilet did not flush, the shower leaked, and bathroom door opened and closed only with significant force and their expert’s testimony that bathroom suffered a contractually-covered sudden collapse, and insurer did not offer a contradictory expert report or any evidence to create an issue of fact regarding insureds’ contention that toilet and shower did not work
49 Fla. L. Weekly D192a CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. JOSE ZAMANILLO, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-1564. L.T. Case No. 11-24918. January 17, 2024. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, and Scot E. Samis and C. […]
Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Joint proposal — Validity — Ambiguous proposal — Trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees under section 768.79 based on determination that defendants’ joint proposal for settlement was ambiguous because it failed to provide a timeframe for payment of the settlement amount once it was accepted or state that a judgment would be entered in the amounts offered — Neither section 768.79 nor rule 1.442 expressly requires that a settlement proposal from a defendant state when a plaintiff will receive settlement funds — Omission of a date certain as to when settlement proceeds will be paid does not result in an inherent ambiguity — Proposal was not required to contain any language providing for the entry of judgment in the amount of defendants’ settlement offer — Court rejects argument that joint proposal’s $0 apportionment to one of the two defendants rendered proposal ambiguous — Status of defendant did not remain in question where proposal plainly and unambiguously conditioned plaintiff’s acceptance of proposal on her dismissing, with prejudice, the entirety of the case “as to all defendants” — Fact that one defendant would not be contributing to settlement payment did not render proposal an illusory offer to enter an agreement that was unenforceable for lack of consideration — A joint offer accurately reflecting that an indemnified offeror is not contributing to the joint settlement offer is not invalid
49 Fla. L. Weekly D186a SDG DADELAND ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Appellants, v. KENYA ARIAS, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-2237. L.T. Case No. 18-6862. January 17, 2024. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge. Counsel: Bleakley Bavol Denman & Grace, P.A., and Robert Bleakley, R.G. (Mack) McCormick, Jr., and […]