46 Fla. L. Weekly D633a HIALEAH HOSPITAL, INC., Appellant, v. JOSHUA MISIUS HAYES-BOURSIQUOT, etc., Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-0050. L.T. Case No. 15-24325. March 24, 2021. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Abby Cynamon, Judge. Counsel: Falk, Waas, Hernandez, Solomon, Mendlestein & Davis P.A., and Glenn P. Falk and Scott L. […]
Articles
Attorney’s fees — Hours — Reduction — Trial court’s failure to reduce fees for hours billed was arbitrary and unsupported where experts from both parties provided testimony that reduction was necessary, but trial court ignored that recommendation without explanation — Remand for reduction of number of billable hours and recalculation of Lodestar amount
46 Fla. L. Weekly D631a UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CARMEN CELESTRIN, et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-541. L.T. Case No. 18-6008. March 24, 2021. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Counsel: Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., Elizabeth K. Russo and Paulo R. Lima, […]
Insurance — Proposal for settlement — Timeliness — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement served on a second plaintiff eleven days after she was added to the case through the filing of an amended complaint was premature, in violation of rule 1.442(b), and was unenforceable — The critical date for determining whether the proposal for settlement served on the second plaintiff was timely was the date that second plaintiff commenced the action, which is the date on which she became a plaintiff — Order reversed to the extent that trial court found that defendant was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs based on proposal for settlement served on second plaintiff
46 Fla. L. Weekly D584c GENET ARIZONE and VANA SIMON, Appellants, v. HOMEOWNERS CHOICE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D18-1116. Opinion filed March 17, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Keith R. Kyle, Judge. Counsel: Erin M. Berger and Melissa A. Giasi of Giasi Law, P.A., […]
Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Trial court erred in denying insurer’s motion to compel appraisal — Because insurer did not wholly deny coverage, appraisal was appropriate and should not have been denied — Court rejects insured’s waiver and ripeness arguments — Insurer did all it needed to do before demanding appraisal and did not act inconsistently with its appraisal right
46 Fla. L. Weekly D582a CASTLE KEY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. MARK FISCHER, Appellee. 1st District. Case No. 1D20-1621. March 16, 2021. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Frances S. King, Judge. Counsel: Scot E. Samis of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, St. Petersburg; David Molhem of Molhem & Fraley, P.A., […]
Workers’ compensation — Insurance — Contractors — Coverage — Cancellation — Conditions precedent — Promissory estoppel — Judge of compensation claims did not err in concluding that claimant was not covered under employer/subcontractor’s workers’ compensation insurance policy because insurer had cancelled the policy for nonpayment prior to claimant’s accident — Court rejects argument that cancellation of policy was ineffective because policy contained a condition precedent allowing employer/subcontractor the opportunity to pay unpaid premiums before policy was cancelled — Provision of policy stating that the unpaid premium is immediately due and payable when payroll deduction is terminated or suspended for any reason was not a condition precedent because provision did not expressly condition cancellation on a second nonpayment — Policy’s only stated condition precedent to cancellation was ten days’ notice to policyholder, which insurer satisfied by mailing notice to employer/subcontractor’s last known address — Determination that insurer was not estopped from cancelling policy based on general contractor’s reliance on the certificate of liability insurance provided by employer/subcontractor is affirmed — Any error by JCC in focusing on the reasonableness of general contractor’s reliance on the COI is harmless because the JCC’s finding that any reliance by general contractor on the COI was not reasonable is supported by competent, substantial evidence and makes enforcement unnecessary to avoid injustice
46 Fla. L. Weekly D581a DENNIS F. SCOTT, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. JAMES A. JONES CONSTRUCTION CO., Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. CENTRAL FLORIDA SIDING PROS, LLC, NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC., LION INSURANCE COMPANY, PACKARD CLAIMS, NOBLES AMERICAN SERVICES, LLC, Appellees/Cross-Appellees. 1st District. Case No. 1D20-689. March 16, 2021. On appeal from an order of the Office […]