47 Fla. L. Weekly D1252a ARNOLD J. HARRISON, individually and on behalf of R.H. and all those similarly situated, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF STATE GROUP INSURANCE and BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D20-101. June 8, 2022. On […]
Articles
Jurisdiction — Federal — Declaratory Judgment Act — Issues disputed in state court proceedings — District court overstepped the bounds of its discretion when it dismissed federal complaint because it overlapped significantly with pending state court action after fully assessing only one of the two claims for declaratory relief, rather than both of the claims — District court also erred when it assessed whether federal and state cases were “parallel” as prerequisite to considering guideposts set out by Eleventh Circuit in Ameritas Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach — Analysis of federalism and comity concerns generated by competing cases, as well as the comparative utility of the declaratory judgment action, is not restricted to set of factors set forth in Ameritas, but is properly characterized as a “totality-of-the-circumstances analysis,” which requires a complete understanding of the competing interests — Discussion of Act’s jurisdictional provision and precedents developed to aid district courts in balancing competing state and federal interests, including Ameritas factors — Determining whether federal and state cases are “parallel” is not a prerequisite to considering Ameritas guideposts because the guideposts themselves account for the interests presented by competing state and federal lawsuits — Nothing in instant action, in which general liability insurer sought declaration concerning applicability of policy’s limitation of coverage for assault and battery to bodily injury sustained in shooting on insured’s premises and the application of workers’ compensation and employer-liability exclusions to state-court tort claims against its insured, warrant declining jurisdiction
29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C1142 JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICH BON CORP., a Florida corporation d.b.a. The Mint Lounge, MARQUELL SHELLMAN, an individual, DAINA HILBERT, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Hilbert, Defendants-Appellees. 11th Circuit. Case No. 20-11617. May 23, 2022. Appeal from the U.S. District Court […]
Insurance — Homeowners — Loss inspection — Video and audio recording — Trial court erred by ruling that insurance policy did not permit insureds to video and audio record insurer’s agent’s inspection of a property loss where policy was silent as to video or audio recording — Insurance adjuster did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy while inspecting insureds’ home
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1178a RYAN D. GESTEN and ANDREA GESTEN, Appellants, v. AMERICAN STRATEGIC INSURANCE CORP., Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D21-1851. June 1, 2022. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Joseph George Marx, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502019CA015181XXXXMB. Counsel: Samuel Alexander of Alexander Appellate Law, P.A., […]
Torts — Premises liability — Injuries sustained by diving into private residential swimming pool — Under specific combination of circumstances, trial court erred by entering summary judgment in favor of pool owner on ground that owner owed no duty of care to warn of dangerous condition because pool constituted an open and obvious danger — Triable issue of fact existed as to whether pool and pool area created hidden danger or trap that could give rise to duty of care on part of landowner — Plaintiff asserted various attendant circumstances that allegedly prevented him from properly discerning pool depth before diving in, including unconventional design of pool, which was shallow at both ends and deepest in the middle; lack of lighting and signage; and placement of planters leading defendant to believe that the pool had a conventional deep end sufficient for diving
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1163a ALDO GABRIEL AMENTA POZANCO, Appellant, v. FJB 6501, INC., Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-1734. L.T. Case No. 18-42369. June 1, 2022. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge. Counsel: Wald, Gonzalez & Graff, P.A., and Estrella F. Gonzalez; Harris Appeals, P.A., and Andrew A. […]
Torts — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Validity — Good faith — Trial court abused its discretion by awarding plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs based on defendant’s rejection of proposal for settlement which required defendant to pay over a million dollars in cash within thirty days — Proposal for settlement was not made in good faith — Specific requirement that defendant actually make payment to effectuate acceptance made offer illusory as there was no real possibility defendant could accept — Proposal would have been valid if it allowed acceptance by agreeing to an entry of judgment against defendant or by allowing defendant to sign a promissory note
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1121a STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. JAMES LIGHTFOOT and MARILYN ROSEANNE HUNT, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D20-2285. MARILYN ROSEANNE HUNT, Appellant, v. JAMES LIGHTFOOT and STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees. Case No. 1D20-2303. May 25, 2022. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Katie L. […]