Abbey Adams Logo

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

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

July 7, 2017 by admin

Torts — Releases — Trial court properly entered summary judgment for defendant on basis of general release executed by plaintiff where plaintiff’s claims accrued prior to execution of general release

42
Fla. L. Weekly D1508b
Top of Form

Torts
— Releases — Trial court properly entered summary judgment for defendant on
basis of general release executed by plaintiff where plaintiff’s claims accrued
prior to execution of general release

OSVALDO MARTINEZ, Appellant, v.
PREFERRED CARE PARTNERS, INC., et al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No.
3D16-440. L.T. Case No. 12-39331. July 5, 2017. An Appeal from the Circuit
Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge. Counsel: Osvaldo
Martinez, in proper person. Legon Fodiman, P.A., and Todd R. Legon and William
F. Rhodes, for appellees.

(Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and EMAS
and LOGUE, JJ.)

(ROTHENBERG, C.J.) Osvaldo Martinez
(“Martinez”) appeals the trial court’s entry of an order granting final summary
judgment in favor of Preferred Care Partners, Inc. (“PCP”), Preferred Care
Partners Medical Group, Inc., Preferred Care Partners Holding Corp., Joseph L.
Caruncho, and Justo Luis Pozo (collectively, “the defendants”). We affirm.

The record reflects that Martinez
previously owned companies that entered into a Network Risk Agreement with PCP.
According to the agreement, PCP was to provide Martinez’s companies with
Medicare-eligible members in its healthcare plan; Martinez’s companies would
provide medical care for those members; and the parties would split the
capitation from the federal government. Martinez sued the defendants on October
5, 2012 for allegedly committing various tortious acts. The defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment as to all of Martinez’s claims based, in part, on
the general release Martinez executed on January 18, 2012, releasing the
defendants from the claims alleged in his complaint.

A general release is construed
according to the principles governing the construction of contracts. Plumpton
v. Cont’l Acreage Dev. Co.,
830 So. 2d 208, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The
general release in the instant case unambiguously covers “all manner of claims”
that Martinez and the companies he formerly owned “have, had, or may have had”
against the defendants “from the beginning of the world to present.” Such
all-encompassing language fully protects the defendants, as it is undisputed
that the claims in Martinez’s complaint accrued prior to the execution of the
general release. See AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Gelpi, 12 So. 3d
783, 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Brewer v. Laborfinders of Tampa, 944 So. 2d
1102, 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

It is also undisputed that Martinez
failed to file a reply containing any legal theory that could result in the
avoidance of the defendants’ general release. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.100
(“If an answer or third-party answer contains an affirmative defense and the
opposing party seeks to avoid it, the opposing party must file a reply
containing the avoidance.”); CJM Fin., Inc. v. Castillo Grand, LLC, 40
So. 3d 863, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (affirming summary judgment “because the
clear language of a release barred the claim and [the plaintiff] failed to
properly plead any legal theory that would have avoided the release”).
Accordingly, the trial court properly entered final summary judgment in favor
of the defendants.

Affirmed.

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Appeal from order awarding attorney’s fees and costs and attorney’s fees for fees incurred in litigating amount of fees reversed in light of appellate court’s reversal of substantive portion of summary judgment on which awards were based and remand with instructions — Reversal is without prejudice to filing new appeal after trial court has concluded its labor
  • Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were factual issues as to insured’s compliance with post-loss obligations and any ensuing prejudice — Remand for further proceedings
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Assignee’s breach of contract action against insurer — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor after paying post-lawsuit appraisal award within time limit required by the policy where appraisal process confirmed that insurer had wrongly denied paying assignee a specified amount of benefits under the policy — Payment of postsuit appraisal award did not render case moot — Remand for further proceedings on assignee’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs
  • Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Failure to state on the record the reasons for granting motion for summary judgment, as required by amended rule — Remand to allow court an opportunity to state reasons for its decision “with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review”
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Presuit demand letter — Presuit demand letter did not comply with statute where amount claimed to be due was not sufficiently precise — Although letter asked insurer to advise plaintiff if demand letter was defective in any way, nothing in language of section 627.736 requires an insurer to give notice to the insured or an assignee that a demand letter is defective

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. Abbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982