Verdicts by Practice Area: General Liability

On June 5, 2025, Appellate Partner, Bonnie Sack obtained an order from the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirming Defendant Life Storage’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment in a dispute over a self-service storage rental unit styled John Bill Hagler v. Life Storage, Inc. et al. The Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging that the Defendant improperly auctioned the contents of his storage unit.

Plaintiff entered a rental agreement with the Defendant for a self-service storage unit. The rental agreement provided that the tenant was to supply a mailing address. To change that mailing address, the tenant was to provide in writing, dated and signed, a new address. That was not performed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff failed to pay the monthly rental fee on the storage unit. The Defendant enforced its lien rights against Plaintiff’s personal property pursuant to the agreement and Florida’s “Self-storage Facility Act.” Fla. Stat. s. 83.801-83.809 . The rental agreement provided that a notice of auction was to be provided by U.S. Mail to the tenant’s physical address as listed in the agreement. The Defendant properly mailed the notice to the Plaintiff’s mailing address identified in the agreement and by publication. The Plaintiff contended that the notice of lien and auction should have been provided by email. However, that was not mandatory pursuant to the agreement. 

On March 28, 2025, Stuart Managing Partner Ben Pahl obtained an order granting Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment in a premises liability case in Plaintiff v. Defendant Retail Store FL. The Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging that Defendant was liable for Plaintiff’s slip-and-fall inside of Defendant’s retail store while shopping, as well as for negligent maintenance of the subject store.

Plaintiff alleged that while she was shopping inside of the subject Retail store, she slipped-and-fell near the checkout counter on what she described as an unknown liquid on the floor. Consequently, Plaintiff alleged that she sustained bodily injury, including low back pain, hip pain, and arm pain. Mr. Pahl was able to successfully argue that based upon the undisputed material facts, the Defendant was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law as there was no record evidence that the Defendant had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the floor in the area where Plaintiff allegedly slipped-and-fell. Mr. Pahl also pointed out that Plaintiff’s negligent maintenance claim was abolished pursuant to Florida Statute 768.0755.  Plaintiff claimed past medical bills were approximately $90,000.00, which consisted of among other treatment, epidural steroid injections. Plaintiff was also recommended to undergo lower back surgery. Mr. Pahl never tendered a settlement offer, as he was able to ascertain that the merits of the complaint were fruitless, and was steadfast in his ability to get the summary judgment granted. The summary judgment prevented a trial scheduled to begin soon thereafter.

On October 4, 2025, Fort Myers Junior Partner Andrew Walker and Managing Partner Patrick Boland obtained an entry of Final Judgment in a general liability matter styled Plaintiff v. Defendant 1 and Defendant Utility Systems. The case involved claims of negligence against our client. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed our client’s negligence in operating a motor vehicle caused impact with Plaintiff’s person as he was walking in a crosswalk, resulting in significant damages and extensive past and anticipated future surgical care. Mr. Walker and Mr. Boland were asked to parachute into a December 2025 trial after Plaintiff’s “rejection” of a recent non-binding arbitration award. Plaintiff had requested over 25 times the amount of the award during the proceeding. Immediately upon review of the docket, Mr. Walker and Mr. Boland identified an issue with Plaintiff’s “rejection” of the NBA award – namely Plaintiff’s failure to strictly comply with a recent amendment to Rule 1.820(h) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon identification of this defect, our client withdrew a pending Proposal for Settlement which far exceeded the arbitration award, and subsequently obtained an order of the court to unseal the award and enter a final judgment, resulting in a leveraged settlement on behalf of the Defendant.  

On July 25, 2025, Orlando Managing Partner Anthony Merendino and Senior Appellate Partner Daniel Weinger obtained an order granting Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment in a premises liability case styled Plaintiff v. Defendant Retail Store FL. The Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging that Defendant was liable for Plaintiff’s slip-and-fall inside of Defendant retail store while shopping, as well as for negligent maintenance of the subject store.

Plaintiff alleged that while she was shopping inside of the subject Retail store, she slipped-and-fell in an aisle on what she described as a sand-like substance on the Floor. Con-sequently, Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries primarily to her low back. We were able to successfully argue that based upon the undisputed material facts (obtained mostly from Plaintiff’s deposition), the Defendant was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law as there was no record evidence that the Defendant had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the floor in the area where Plaintiff allegedly slipped-and-fell. Mr. Merendino also pointed out that Plaintiff’s negligent maintenance claim was abolished pursuant to Florida Statute 68.0755.  Plaintiff’s claimed past medical bills were approximately $40,000, which consisted of among other treatment, epidural steroid injections and plasma injections. Plaintiff was also recommended to undergo a low back surgery. Plaintiff rejected a settlement offer in 2024. The summary judgment prevented a trial scheduled to begin in December, 2025.

On June 25, 2025, Senior Partner Allison Janowitz obtained an order granting Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment in the premises liability case styled Plaintiff v. Defendant Mall. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, alleging liability for a slip and fall inside the Mall. Plaintiff alleged that she slipped on a pink liquid on the floor while walking through the Mall's common area. Plaintiff could only testify to one streak mark through the liquid, which she stated was from her sandal. Video of the incident was retained, and the Court found it showed numerous individuals walking through the exact area where Plaintiff fell. Ultimately, Plaintiff complained of pain in her right hip, left knee, and right hand. She was diagnosed with a closed fracture of the distal end of the right radius. Medical specials were estimated at $6,000.00.

On July 1, 2025, Orlando Managing Partner Anthony Merendino and Senior Appellate Partner Daniel Weinger obtained an order granting Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment in a premises liability case in Plaintiff v. Plaza Resort & Spa Association, Inc.. The Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging that Defendant was vicariously liable for the actions of its employee(s) where Plaintiff alleged that the employee(s) violently attacked the Plaintiff causing serious bodily injuries.\

Plaintiff alleged that he entered the Defendant’s hotel premises in an effort to visit with his girlfriend who had been visiting friends staying at the hotel. While inside the hotel premises, the Plaintiff alleged that he was “violently attacked” in or near the lobby area by an employee of the Defendant. Plaintiff alleged that as a result of the attack, he was thrown to the ground. Consequently, Plaintiff alleged that he sustained injuries to his neck, back, head, and internal organs, resulting in neck and low back surgeries, and a surgery to repair a hernia. Plaintiff’s claimed past medical bills were approximately $200,000.00. Despite the allegation that Defendant’s employee attacked him, the Plaintiff never could identify the alleged assailant and testified that there were two (2) unidentified individuals near him at the time of the incident who he could not identify as employees of the Defendant. Though the Defendant vehemently denied that any of its employees ever attacked or assaulted the Plaintiff, we argued that (1) an employee’s (alleged) criminal assault and/or intentional tort cannot impose vicarious liability on the employer in light of no record evidence that such conduct was within the course and scope of employment, and (2) the Plaintiff’s remaining vicarious liability count could only be supported by an impermissible stacking of inferences. The summary judgment prevented a trial scheduled to begin shortly thereafter.

Earlier in the case, we were successful in obtaining partial summary judgment on prior causes of action asserted by the Plaintiff for negligent hiring and negligent retention, as well as on Plaintiff’s wage loss claims.

Senior Partner Derrick M Kelly, Esq., and Associate Madeline Dixon, Esq., obtained a favorable result in a general liability negligence matter that prevented their client from incurring significant damages, including attorney’s fees.  Plaintiff Susan Rae Bolton, as trustee of the Betty J. Whitlock Trust, filed a property damage lawsuit against DP Development, LLC, alleging that its asphalt paving crew negligently applied hot asphalt near a wooden garage structure during a private parking lot paving project, that caused a fire that completely consumed the attached garage structure used for storage, and caused extensive smoke and soot damage to the main structure, estimated as high as $895,000 to repair.  In addition, the fire resulted in a business tenant vacating the premises, as it was no longer inhabitable for business operation.

The case was contested on both liability and damages, and consisted of 17 depositions, including multiple depositions of experts, a corporate representative for FPL, and numerous fact witnesses.  Plaintiff served a PFS in October 2023, when at that time, only four depositions had been taken.  The disputed issues of liability involved contested evidence regarding whether the fire started inside or outside the garage based on fire patterns, consumption rate of wood and beams, and other information.  Damages was contested based on the proper measure of damages, as well as what metric for the measure of damages to use.  Defendant filed a Motion in Limine requesting that the Court determined that the proper measure of damages for the real property was limited to the diminution in value, as opposed to repair and replacement costs. 

The Court, the Honorable George Paulk, agreed.  The only issue remaining was the proper measure of the diminution in value.  Plaintiff argued that the proper measure of diminution in value was $425,000, after consideration of retroactive valuation of property preceding fire, and post-fire valuation.  Defendant argued that the proper measure of diminution in value was $192,000, as estimated by the Brevard County Property Appraiser’s Office. At trial, Defense counsel got Plaintiff’s diminution in value expert to agree that the valuation of the Brevard County Property Appraiser’s Office was a legitimate metric, even if he disagreed.  In addition, at trial, Defendant filed a Motion for Directed Verdict on Plaintiff’s claim of future loss business rent for failure to produce adequate document Terry evidence to support as payment of rent.

Liability was contested to the very end, with the jury asking questions of witnesses that went to the heart of liability. Plaintiff requested $495,000 from the jury. Defendant strategically conceded certain hard cost and miscellaneous damages, while challenging the diminution in value and claims of lost future rent. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict of $369,000. This led Plaintiff’s lead counsel to request the Court poll the jury to ensure that it was everyone’s verdict.

On January 6, 2025, Senior Partner Erin O’Connell obtained a Final Summary Judgment in a General Liability matter styled Le Luxe Beauty Bar d/b/a Bellezza Beauty Bar v. Enlighten Electric. The case involves claims of negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent retention against our insured, Enlighten Electric.  Plaintiff, a nail salon, claimed that an employee of the Defendant burglarized the salon resulting in damages, including loss of earning capacity and income.  The salon was new and not yet opened, and was under construction by various contractors, including Defendant, with intent to open shortly before the burglary occurred.  The salon shared a d/b/a with an existing salon at a different location, owned by the sister of the owner of the new salon.  Plaintiff brought suit under the legal entity and d/b/a of the existing salon, and not the new salon, as it was not yet open and there was a question of ownership and damages.

Defendant argued that Plaintiff, a d/b/a salon, filed suit under the incorrect legal entity name.  The case involved complications including ownership of various entities, transfer of ownership, and which entity incurred damages.  Plaintiff argued that the two salons were tied together inextricably, and that the existing salon was the proper Plaintiff as the new salon was unable to open due to the burglary.

The Court heard oral argument in July of 2024 and the Court spent six months weighing the arguments and all evidence provided by the parties.  The Court agreed that the party that brought the suit was the incorrect party.  The Court also found that the Defendant is entitled to its fees and costs for the life of litigation. Of note, the date of loss was October 20, 2019, and the statute of limitations has now run, so the correct Plaintiff cannot now come forward with suit of their own.

On July 16, 2024, Jacksonville Partner, Deana N. Dunham obtained an order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a trip and fall case involving a pallet in Plaintiff v. Defendant Retail Store Pallot Fall. The plaintiff filed suit against defendant alleging that Defendant Retail Store failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn her of a hazardous condition.  

Plaintiff tripped and fell on a pallet outside of Defendant Retail Store.  Plaintiff was a truck driver whose truck had broken down in the parking lot, where she remained for a majority of the day. She had gone into the store once during the day and went back out to her truck. While she remained at the store, she observed a row of merchandise stacked on pallets in the front of the store, with bags of soil stacked about waist or rib height. The row of stacked merchandise was adjacent to a fence such that there was a narrow walkway between the row of stacked merchandise and the fence to the garden department. Plaintiff testified that she observed other customers walking through the narrow pathway, and decided to do the same when her foot caught on the edge of the pallet and she fell to the ground. After the incident, she observed that the pallet was missing a board on the top.

The court noted that the First DCA case, Brookie v. Winn Dixie is instructive in this matter. The Brookie case involved a customer who tripped on a pallet in a retail store. The court found that the pallet was open and obvious, and that some conditions are so open and obvious that a landowner can reasonably assume that invitees will perceive them upon ordinary use of their senses, and are not hazardous as a matter of law. The court held that the undisputed evidence showed that the pallet, as described by Plaintiff was open and obvious, and the missing board did not make it less so. There was no evidence to indicate that the pallet was obscured, hidden or camouflaged.

Junior Partner Scott Chapman, Esq., and Senior Associate Hayley Newman, Esq., obtained Summary Judgment on counts for breach of contract and negligence in a case involving water damage to a condominium unit in the matter styled Rodney and Emily Regan v. Carillon Condominium Association, Inc. This case arose out of an alleged roof leak in the common area at the Defendant Condominium Association. The Association was previously sued by Plaintiffs in a 2014 lawsuit against the Defendant Condominium Association, resulting in an executed release by the Plaintiffs. Defendant proffered to the Court that the Plaintiffs’ renewed Complaint sought double recovery against the Defendant Association in violation of the principles of Res Judicata. The Court agreed that the release executed previously by the Plaintiffs was a bar to monetary damages and granted Summary Judgment as to Counts I and II of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Read more

Fort Lauderdale Managing Partner William Peterfriend, Esq., Junior Partner Erin O’Connell, Esq., and Appellate Partner Daniel Weinger, Esq., obtained a Dismissal with Prejudice pending a hearing on motion to strike pleadings for fraud on the court.  In the matter styled Romeo Hebert v. Robert Boutin and Walks and Decks, Inc., Plaintiff, Romeo Hebert, claimed damages stemming from an accident in which he flipped over the handlebars of his bicycle in his neighborhood, resulting in injuries to his right hip and right leg.  Plaintiff claimed that he was riding his bicycle in his neighborhood and suddenly came upon a forklift owned and operated by Walks and Decks, Inc., causing him to swerve out of the way and crash his bike.  Co-Defendant was a neighbor of Plaintiff who was driving around the forklift at the time that Plaintiff crashed his bicycle.  Read more

Marc Greenberg, Senior Partner obtained a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice in matter styled Jane Doe v. International Airport, et al.   Plaintiff was in Terminal 3 of a South Florida International Airport walking to her connecting flight to return home to Texas when a ground transportation operator negligently impacted Plaintiff with a flat-bed luggage cart. Plaintiff sustained a left wrist fracture resulting in surgery, a nose fracture, and various facial abrasions. Her past medical bills were $91,000 at the time of the filing of the lawsuit. Plaintiff’s pre-suit global demand was $450,000. Read more

Fort Lauderdale Senior Partner Dorsey Miller, Esq. prevailed on a Motion for Summary Judgment in Joseph vs. Broward County Sheriff's Office and Israel. Plaintiff brought a 6-Count Complaint against BSO for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of public trust, preparing a false police report, violation of Plaintiff’s rights under section 1983 and negligent supervision. Plaintiff claimed BSO failed to properly document an incident involving him and a third party at a dog park, which prevented him from obtaining benefits from the Florida Crime Victims’ Fund for his injuries. Read More

Tampa Jr. Partner, Joseph  Kopacz, obtained Summary Final Judgment in the matter of Brett Stout v. Desmond Rowden, LLC,, in Hillsborough County in front of Honorable Judge Isom on August 24, 2016. Plaintiff alleged negligence against Desmond Rowden, LLC. following his fall through a skylight on a roofing job in which he was responsible for removing and replacing several skylights on a warehouse building. Read More

Edgardo Ferreyra obtained a dismissal in the False Imprisonment matter styled Shane Burnett v. Defendant Retail Store.  The Plaintiff appealed to the Eleventh Cir. Court and the appeal was dismissed. Read More

On February 10, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., Plaintiff was shocked by a four-hundred and eighty volt electrical wire servicing the light poles on the senior field of Defendant Azalea Little League in St. Petersburg. Plaintiff claimed that he had no memory of the manner in which he came into contact with the wire. Plaintiff alleged that Azalea Little League was negligent for allowing a dangerous condition to exist on the premises and that the electrician, Defendant Collins, was also negligent for failing to repair the wire sooner and failing to inspect the field before energizing the wire. Defendants contended and proved at trial that they had no prior knowledge of any dangerous condition and Plaintiff himself knew of the condition and voluntarily exposed himself to the danger by grabbing the wire with his thumb and forefinger. Plaintiff's damages were also disputed. Defendants filed a Proposal for Settlement to Plaintiff Martin for $ 9,000 and to Plaintiff Lynn for $ 1,000. Plaintiffs would not consider any offer below $ 100,000. With pain and suffering, Plaintiffs demanded approximately $ 400,000.  Read More