47 Fla. L. Weekly D1119a AARON ABADI, Appellant, v. WALT DISNEY WORLD PARKS & RESORTS, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D21-3749. May 25, 2022. On appeal from Florida Commission on Human Relations. Cheyanne M. Costilla, Executive Director. Counsel: Aaron Abadi, pro se, Appellant. Audrey Pumariega Angulo, Miami, for Appellee. (PER CURIAM.) This is an appeal […]
Articles
Insurance — Automobile liability — Settlement agreement — Validity — Disclosure statement — Verification — Trial court erred by determining that there was no settlement agreement between between insurer and plaintiff who was injured by insured vehicle as a matter of law based on fact that insurer’s information disclosure, which was certified as being true by claims manager “under penalty of perjury,” did not comply with technical requirement in section 627.4137 that it be under oath — Under section 92.525, a document verified as being true “under penalty of perjury” qualifies as a statement under oath for purposes of satisfying verification requirement of section 627.4137 — Valid settlement agreement was formed where insurer undisputedly accepted plaintiff’s offer on terms presented, and insurer paid plaintiff’s disputed claim — Insurer’s payment of claim at plaintiff’s demand was consideration for plaintiff’s promise to execute a release of the insureds where insurer had no legal obligation to pay plaintiff’s disputed injury and loss claim — Furthermore, any technical compliance by insurer with preexisting statutory obligation was not part of the parties’ bargain and is not relevant to question of whether settlement agreement exists
SINOEUN KOUNG, LORM SOUN, and LEANG VE, Appellants, v. MICHAEL GIORDANO and MELISSA CHEVALIER, Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D20-724. May 25, 2022. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Adrian G. Soud, Judge. Counsel: Raymond L. Roebuck and Brian M. Guter of O’Hara Law Firm, Jacksonville, for Appellants. Martin H. Sitler and […]
Rules of Civil Procedure — Amendment — Proposals for settlement — Form and content
47 Fla. L. Weekly S137a IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.442. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC21-277. May 26, 2022. Original Proceeding — Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel: Jason P. Stearns, Chair, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Tampa, Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, and Mikalla Andies Davis, Staff Liaison, The […]
Torts — Premises liability — Retail stores — Default judgment — Amendment — Sanctions — District court acted within its discretion in imposing sanctions on attorney based on attorney’s frivolous motion to amend default judgment in negligence case against non-existent corporation to add two unrelated non-party companies as judgment debtors — District court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that attorney’s claim that default judgment against non-existent corporation allowed him to collect damages from two unrelated non-party companies was objectively frivolous, legally and factually — There was no factual support for attorney’s claim that non-existent corporation was fictitious name of either company and no indication that companies used that name, and there was no legal support for attorney’s argument that judgment against non-existent corporation entitled him to collect against two unrelated companies — Attorney should have known that his arguments in support of amending default judgment against non-existent corporation to add two unrelated companies as judgment debtors were legally and factually frivolous, and he acted in bad faith — Safe harbor — District court acted within its discretion when it imposed sanctions based on attorney’s frivolous motion to amend default judgment where the offending motion could have been withdrawn under Rule 11’s safe harbor provision — Reconsideration — District court acted within its discretion in denying attorney’s motion for reconsideration of its decision to impose Rule 11 sanctions where district court found that motion amounted to no more than disagreement with district court’s reasoning and ultimate conclusion and merely sought to litigate old matters — Attorney abandoned claim that district court abused its discretion in denying motion for reconsideration when attorney failed to support claim with arguments and citations to authority and, instead, merely made passing reference to issue — Motion failed to establish clear error of law or manifest injustice as required for reconsideration of court’s decision to impose sanctions
29 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C1111a MICHAEL GULISANO, Interested Party-Appellant, CATHY COHEN, Plaintiff, v. BURLINGTON, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 11th Circuit. Case No. 20-12660. May 12, 2022. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 9:18-cv-81420-BB). (Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.) (JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge.) When attorney Michael Gulisano […]
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Insured prevailing in action against insurer — Lodestar — Contingency risk multiplier — Lodestar figure was not supported by competent substantial evidence where fee expert admitted that he did not conduct line-item analysis of time records as required, but simply reduced hours billed by 7.5 percent with no proffered rationale for this reduction — Further, trial court did not make specific findings as to its determination of number of hours reasonably expended, but instead applied an arbitrary, across-the-board cut of 15 percent — Multiplier — Application of contingency risk multiplier was unsupported by competent substantial evidence regarding counsel’s ability to mitigate risk of nonpayment — Lodestar amount and application of multiplier reversed — Remand with instructions to reduce number of hours billed to specific number that was supported by competent substantial evidence adduced by insurer’s fee expert
47 Fla. L. Weekly D1086b CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON, Appellant, v. RONIEL CANDELARIA and AMELIA PADURA, Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-871. L.T. Case No. 18-21672. May 18, 2022. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Martin Zilber, Judge. Counsel: Sastre Saavedra & Epstein, PLLC, and Michael Sastre, for appellant. Alvarez, Feltman, […]