49 Fla. L. Weekly D606a SARAH S. SONA, Appellant, v. FOUNDATION SERVICES OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC., STONE CREEK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., PULTE HOME COMPANY, LLC, CIRACO UNDERGROUND, INC., ANDREYEV ENGINEERING, INC., et al., Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D22-2558. L.T. Case No. 2020-CA-0026. March 15, 2024. On Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County. […]
Articles
Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Residence — Independent contractors — Business invitees — Open and obvious danger — Summary judgment — Action stemming from injuries plaintiff suffered when he slipped on green algae on defendant’s deck while walking to defendant’s front door to drop off paperwork related to lawn services plaintiff’s employer was hired to perform — Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant based on determination that plaintiff was the employee of an independent contractor who was injured in the course and scope of performing his contractual duties, and that no reasonable jury could find that the algae was anything but open and obvious — Plaintiff’s injuries were not sustained in the course of performing his contractual duties where plaintiff was merely entering the property and had not yet begun performing lawn services — Because plaintiff’s injuries were not sustained in course of his contractual duties, defendant’s duty to plaintiff should have been analyzed under framework governing a landowner’s duty to business invitees — There was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the dangerous condition of the deck was open and obvious where plaintiff testified that deck did not look wet and defendant himself was uncertain about the deck’s slipperiness — Additionally, regardless of whether hazard was open and obvious, defendant had a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition by repairing conditions that defendant anticipates will cause harm — There was a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether defendant had properly maintained the deck in a reasonably safe condition and whether he should have anticipated that the dangerous condition would cause injury where defendant acknowledged that the deck needed to be maintained during the year and that deck needed to be cleaned at the time of plaintiff’s fall, and agreed that the portion of the deck with the algae on it should not have been walked upon
49 Fla. L. Weekly D610a TEKI WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. JOHN WEAVER, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D23-0324. L.T. Case No. 2019-CA-000171. March 15, 2024. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County. Eric C. Roberson, Judge. Counsel: Brian J. Lee, of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Kansas R. Gooden, Miami, and Lara Edelstein, […]
Insurance — Automobile liability — Bad faith — Action for common law and statutory bad faith filed by insured and personal injury plaintiff alleging that bad faith had occurred when insurer failed to settle personal injury action by declining proposal for settlement which authorized insureds to enter into a consent judgment in excess of the policy limits that would not be recorded or enforced against the insureds, but which made no indication that insurer would be released from any bad faith liability — No error determining that insurer’s refusal to accept proposals for settlement could not form basis of bad faith claim — Discussion of federal court decision in Kropilak v. 21st Century Insurance Co. — An insurer has no duty to enter a consent judgment in excess of the limits of its policy, and does not ordinarily have a duty to pay a claim in excess of a policy’s limit — Trial court erred by entering final judgment in favor of insurer to extent plaintiff’s claims raised other theories of bad faith, such as how insurer handled personal injury plaintiff’s claims against the insured
49 Fla. L. Weekly D458a BENJAMIN D. MARKUSON; ERIK SATERBO; and STEPHEN SATERBO, Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation; CRAWFORD LAW GROUP, P.A., a Florida corporation; and LARRY WALKER, Appellees. 2nd District. Case No. 2D21-2443. February 28, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emily A. Peacock, Judge. […]
Insurance — Underinsured motorist — Coverage — Limitation of actions — Tolling of period — Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of insurer based on determination that insured’s claim for underinsured motorist benefits was time-barred because it was filed more than five years after date of collision — Statute of limitations was effectively tolled by policy where policy included an exhaustion provision conditioning insurer’s payment of UM benefits on payment of all bodily injury liability benefits by underinsured motorist’s insurer and a no-action provision conditioning suit against insurer on compliance with all policy terms — Although insured could have filed suit against insurer without waiting for payment from tortfeasor’s liability carrier under accrual rule for UM benefits, she was not required to do so based on language of her policy
49 Fla. L. Weekly D504d ROSEMARY ARWAY, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 6th District. Case No. 6D23-399. L.T. Case No. 21-CA-000533. March 1, 2024. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Keith R. Kyle, Judge. Counsel: Alexander L. Brockmeyer, Thomas E. Shepard, and Gregory L. Evans, of Boyle, Leonard & Anderson, P.A., […]
Torts — Premises liability — Argument — New trial — No error in granting motion for new trial based on statement defense counsel made during closing argument which was false, highly prejudicial and inflammatory, violative of prior court order, and not curable — Referral to Florida Bar
49 Fla. L. Weekly D498a NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANT PARTNERS FLORIDA, LLC, Appellant, v. KIRK B. WOLFF, as PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE of the ESTATE of PETER WOLFF, Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D22-1029. L.T. Case No. 05-2020-CA-012922. March 1, 2024. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County. George Paulk, Judge. Counsel: G. Jeffrey Vernis and Isam […]