29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C1774a DONNIE HOLLAND, a citizen and resident of North Carolina, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, a Panamanian Corporation, d.b.a. Carnival Cruise Lines, Defendant-Appellee. 11th Circuit. Case No. 21-10298. October 4, 2022. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 1:20-cv-21789-RNS). (Before WILSON, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit […]
Articles
Insurance — Property — Water damage — Coverage — Denial — Material misrepresentations — Trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of insurer based upon insured’s failure to disclose prior claim on policy application or in discovery — Regarding insured’s argument that insurer could not claim rescission as an affirmative defense because insurer had continued to collect premiums for nearly two years after learning of prior undisclosed claim, insurer sought only to deny coverage under section 627.409 and not to rescind policy
47 Fla. L. Weekly D2070b CESAR BENITEZ, Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D21-3281. October 12, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; David A. Haimes, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE19-000600. Counsel: Ronald P. Weil of Weil Law Firm, P.A., Miami, for […]
Civil procedure — New trial — Verdict contrary to manifest weight of evidence — Appeals — Standard of review — When the claims are intertwined, a finding of no error in granting a new trial as to just one of claims tried is sufficient to support trial court’s grant of a new trial as to all — Order granting new trial affirmed
47 Fla. L. Weekly D2064a MARIE POLYNICE, Appellant, v. BURGER KING CORPORATION, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-0896. L.T. Case No. 14-0522. October 12, 2022. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel Ruiz, Judge. Counsel: Law Offices of Sina Negahbani, and Sina Negahbani; Ross & Girten, and Lauri Waldman Ross and Theresa […]
Torts — Negligent entrustment — Vicarious liability — Dangerous instrumentalities — Injured party is not precluded from pursuing a claim for vicarious liability against a vehicle owner under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine when a driver has weaponized the vehicle with the intent to cause bodily harm where such conduct is reasonably foreseeable — Statutes precluding criminal defendant from denying essential allegations in related civil trial do not operate defensively to prevent plaintiff in a civil suit from arguing his injuries were result of negligence or advancing any other factual theory drawing support from the evidence — Extensive discussion of dangerous instrumentality doctrine in this context — Trial court’s entry of summary judgment was premature where parties sharply dispute foreseeability and facts have not yet been crystalized in proceedings below — Additionally, there has been no factual determination as to whether driver intentionally weaponized vehicle with intent to cause harm or merely acted in a negligent manner — Law allows promulgation of alternative theories of recovery, and any potential prejudice stemming from negligent entrustment claim may be mitigated by incorporating appropriate procedural safeguards to ensure that driver’s past driving record is excluded from jury’s determination of driver’s negligence, but included in jury’s determination of vehicle owner’s culpability for negligent entrustment
47 Fla. L. Weekly D2055a ARTHUR SAGER, Appellant, v. MADALINA BLANCO and RICARDO F. BLANCO, Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-1194. L.T. Case No. 15-641-K. October 12, 2022. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Timothy J. Koenig, Judge. Counsel: Robert C. Tilghman, P.A., Robert C. Tilghman, Nathan E. Eden, P.A., and Nathan […]
Torts — Automobile accident — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Validity — Ambiguous proposal — No error in awarding attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79 — Language of proposal was sufficiently clear and definite to allow plaintiff to evaluate the settlement offer without needing clarification from defendant, and there were no ambiguities within the offer that could have reasonably affected plaintiff’s decision of whether to accept it — Plaintiff could not have reasonably believed that settlement offer was intended to resolve only some of plaintiff’s potential claims, or resolve any claims that were factually unrelated to the car accident — Even though plaintiff’s complaint did not seek punitive damages, the language in the offer about punitive damages should not have been confusing because it emanates from rule 1.442(c)(2)(E), which requires an offer to state with particularity the amount proposed to settle a claim for punitive damages, if any — When read together with the rest of the proposal and the attached release, plaintiff could not have reasonably thought that the settlement would resolve all claims except one for punitive damages
47 Fla. L. Weekly D2024a EUGENIA BURNS, Appellant, v. NOLAN TURNAGE, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D21-1246. October 6, 2022. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. John C. Cooper, Judge. Counsel: Brian J. Lee of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Angela C. Flowers of Kubicki Draper, Ocala, for Appellee. (JAY, J.) […]