Abbey Adams Logo

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

Articles

by

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Coverage — Conditions precedent — Examination under oath — Failure to comply — Trial court erred by entering summary judgment in favor of provider based on determination that insurer was not prejudiced by the insured’s failure to appear for two examinations under oath because insurer failed to notify insured’s attorney about the EUO’s — It was error to find that insurer failed to notify insured’s attorney where, although insured claimed to have an attorney in a telephone conversation with insurer’s special investigator, there was no express notification from an attorney stating that he or she represented insured and requesting notice of any action from insurer — Furthermore, because submitting to an EUO was a condition precedent to receipt of PIP benefits under statute and policy, prejudice was not an element of insurer’s affirmative defense — Because plain language of statute and policy required insured to submit to an examination under oath, insured’s failure to submit to a properly noticed examination under oath barred receipt of benefits

48 Fla. L. Weekly D1130b INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. MIAMI OPEN MRI, LLC a/a/o Rolando Amador, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D22-0948. L.T. Case No. 17-10295 SP. June 7, 2023. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lawrence D. King, Judge. Counsel: Gladys Perez Villanueva; Law Offices of Terry M. Torres […]

by

Attorney’s fees — Offer of judgment — Entitlement to fees — It is not necessary for a party to prevail in a proceeding to be entitled to fees under section 768.79 — Statute is not a prevailing-party statute, but rather operates to penalize a party who refuses to accept a good-faith proposal for settlement

48 Fla. L. Weekly S110a BRINDA COATES, etc., Petitioner, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Respondent. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC2021-0175. June 15, 2023. Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal Direct Conflict of Decisions/Certified Great Public Importance. Fifth District — Case No. 5D19-2549 (Orange County). Counsel: Jonathan A. […]

by

Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Appeals — Award of fees affirmed where record shows that trial court considered each statutory factor, along with chronology of case and other relevant criteria, in awarding attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to rejected proposal for settlement

48 Fla. L. Weekly D1129b THE MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. LEWIS TEIN, P.L., GUY LEWIS and MICHAEL TEIN, Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-1391. L.T. Case No. 16-21856. June 7, 2023. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael A. Hanzman, Judge. Counsel: Saunooke Law Firm, P.A., and Robert […]

by

Appeals — Federal — Jurisdiction — District court’s order compelling appraisal and staying action brought by insured against property insurer pending appraisal is an interlocutory order that is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) or under the Federal Arbitration Act

29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C2515a POSITANO PLACE AT NAPLES I CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit Corporation, POSITANO PLACE AT NAPLES II CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit Corporation, POSITANO PLACE AT NAPLES III CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit Corporation, POSITANO PLACE AT NAPLES IV CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, […]

by

Insurance — Property — Coverage — Hurricane damage — Insurer filed motion for new trial after jury found that insurer breached terms of insurance policy when it denied insured’s claim for damages caused by hurricane and that insured’s covered damages amounted to $9,280,000 — District court properly denied insurer’s motion for new trial arguing that jury’s damages award was excessive — Jury’s damages award was not so inordinately large as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate, given the evidence in the record and the deference due the jury’s factual determinations and the district court

29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C2557a AM GRAND COURT LAKES LLC, AM 280 SIERRA DRIVE LLC, Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants-Appellees, v. ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant. 11th Circuit. Case No. 20-13954. June 5, 2023. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 1:18-cv-23576-KMW). (Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.) (JILL […]

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.