48 Fla. L. Weekly D1876a SLAVICA RAFFAY and ATTILA RAFFAY, Appellants, v. LONGWOOD HOUSE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-1911. L.T. Case No. 19-22104. September 20, 2023. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Counsel: Gulisano Law, PLLC, and Michael Gulisano (Boca Raton), for […]
Articles
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. and Cunningham agreements, which are agreements between an insurer and a third-party claimant to try bad-faith issues before trying underlying negligence claims in the absence of a previous excess judgment — Insurer had no duty to a enter Cunningham-type agreement because entering into Cunningham-type agreements, such as a consent judgment, for purposes of expediting bad faith litigation is the functional equivalent of an excess judgment — Error to enter 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
48 Fla. L. Weekly D1839a 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. September 15, 2023. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emily A. Peacock, Judge. […]
Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Trial court erred in finding that attorney’s fees were not awardable under section 768.79 after plaintiff filed notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice where court had entered summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on two of three counts of complaint prior to voluntary dismissal — Remand for entry of order awarding fees for two counts on which trial court entered summary judgment
48 Fla. L. Weekly D1850a SEJAL KUTHIALA, M.D., Appellant, v. DAVID M. GOLDMAN and BETH MAYERS GOLDMAN, Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D23-121. L.T. Case No. 2018-CA-5658. September 15, 2023. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Gilbert L. Feltel, Jr., Judge. Counsel: M. Scott Thomas, of Burr & Forman, LLP, Jacksonville, for […]
Appeals — Non-final orders — Timeliness — Tolling of period — Motion for rehearing — Appeal of non-final order appointing a receiver dismissed as untimely — Filing of emergency motion for rehearing raising substantive arguments and asserting that trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact did not toll time for filing appeal — Amendment to rule 1.530 does not implicitly authorize motions for rehearings for purposes of tolling rendition of non-final orders — If a litigant wishes to challenge a non-final order pursuant to rule 1.530, they must file appeal within time limits set forth in rule 9.130(b)
48 Fla. L. Weekly D1817a SEND ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Appellants, v. SET DRIVE, LLC, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D23-1175. L.T. Case No. 23-14668. September 13, 2023. An Appeal from non-final orders from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jennifer D. Bailey, Judge. Counsel: Douglas Cox, and Nicole Pearl, in proper persons. […]
nsurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Water damage — Act of nature — Tear out costs — Limitation of liability — Water loss caused by deterioration of property’s cast iron plumbing — Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of insureds based on determination that, because corrosion of pipes was a “natural process” and not an “act of nature,” policy’s water damage exclusion was inapplicable, and the limited water damage endorsement containing limit of liability was not triggered — Deterioration of cast iron pipes constituted an “act of nature” within the meaning of the policy and limited water damage endorsement was triggered — LWD endorsement did not provide coverage for tear-out costs, but only provided coverage for sudden and accidental direct physical loss by water
48 Fla. L. Weekly D1819a PEOPLE’S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. SHEILA BANKS, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-1436. L.T. Case No. 20-1425. September 13, 2023. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Counsel: Brett Frankel and Jonathan Sabghir (Deerfield Beach); and Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., […]