Trial Verdicts and Results
Tender of $1M Policy Limits Rejected - $13,023,932 Jury Demand - 2-Week Trial Miami – Net Verdict $590,751.
On April 1, 2022, Senior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte, Esq., and Managing Partner Daniel Santaniello, Esq. obtained a favorable result in a motorcycle accident matter that occurred on northbound Turnpike just north of Florida City. Plaintiffs jointly asked for $13.1 Million dollars. The $1M policy limits had been tendered and rejected well in advance of trial. The jury apportioned liability 50% to the Plaintiff(s), 10% to the fabre driver, and 40% to the Defendant Abby Tingjing Lu resulting in a net verdict of $590,751.
The case styled Plaintiffs vs. Abby Tingjing Lu was tried over the course of two weeks before Judge Charles Johnson in Miami-Dade County. Our client insured was a Chinese resident living in New York City and was visiting the Florida Keys. She had rented a vehicle from Hertz and was heading back to Fort Lauderdale when the accident happened. Plaintiff was a Cuban-American and Miami resident. His wife, a registered trauma nurse with the Jackson Memorial Health Care System, was on the back of a motorcycle at the time of the accident. Coincidently they were both airlifted to Jackson from this accident. The jury was comprised of five Cuban Americans and one African American.
Our Client encountered some debris on the turnpike and attempted to swerve to avoid it. Nine witnesses testified regarding the accident. There was a dispute over the existence and extent of the debris and a dispute over the actions of our client.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant improperly failed to avoid the debris like other cars that had successfully maneuvered around it according to witnesses. They suggested she was looking at her phone using it for GPS navigation. They claimed that the Event Data Recorder supported that our client moved into the shoulder and then abruptly moved back into the travel lane at only 5.6 mph, striking the motorcycle. They called expert engineer Ralph Aronberg, P.E. who testified the defendant was totally at fault for the accident.
The Defense disputed liability. We called motorcycle expert and engineer Alan Moore to the stand to testify that the plaintiff was following too closely. The Court did not allow us to present evidence that the plaintiff did not have a motorcycle endorsement.
The injuries to both plaintiffs’ were significant. Plaintiff motorcycle operator, was catapulted at 65 mph into the median and sustained significant lower right extremity injuries involving degloving injuries, a shattered femur, shattered ankle. He can no longer walk without pain and severe limp and needs to undergo at least two further surgeries, including an ankle fusion which was not disputed by the defense medical experts. He required four surgeries to save the leg. He did not have health insurance so his specials totaled $906,214.
Plaintiff girlfriend-passenger and now wife, also was catapulted onto the left lane, where she sustained a fractured femur, and required emergency surgery to align and fixate it. She continues to suffer from pain and limitations due to her leg. Her medical bills were $100,003. It is significant to note both plaintiffs are very young – in their late twenties when the accident happened.
Opposing counsel, Jose Menendez, a renowned Miami tobacco trial lawyer, asked the jury for $9,000,000 in pain and suffering for Plaintiff motorcycle operator and $3,020,715 in pain and suffering for Plaintiff passenger. The total damages requested in closing argument were $9,906,214 for Plaintiff motorcycle operator and $3,117,718 for Plaintiff passenger, both totaling $13,023,932.00.
More than 20 witnesses were called to this trial, including eight plaintiff medical experts. The defense employed two key strategies to deal with the sympathy/prejudice associated with a Miami trial involving a Cuban-American plaintiff versus a Chinese resident of New York; and a reasonable pain and suffering award in light of the facts. These strategies were employed in jury selection and closing arguments and helped deliver a verdict wherein the jury gave less than the defense even suggested for non-economic damages. Please feel free to reach out directly to Dan Santaniello to discuss this result further.
Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Dominic Fetchero secured a dismissal in the Duval County matter styled Jose & Cecilia Toro v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for their claim for damage to their property resulting from Hurricane Nicole. Defendant maintained its position on the denial of coverage based on the policy’s exclusion for damage caused by wear and tear and deterioration, and the lack of any evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rainwater to enter the property. Following the filing of several motions to compel, Plaintiff dismissed the case.
FPP Managing Partner Anthony Perez and Junior Partner Justin Schwerling secured a dismissal with prejudice in the Collier County matter styled Beaver Restoration a/a/o Hugo Montero v. Defendant Insurance Company Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by not paying the full amount of its invoices relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that it had fulfilled its obligations by exhausting the statutory limit set forth in Florida Statute §627.7152, and that Plaintiff’s purported assignment of benefits was invalid rendering Plaintiff without standing to maintain the lawsuit. Following receipt of Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
FPP Managing Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Keyondra Parrish secured a dismissal with prejudice in the Seminole County matter styled Katherine Hansen v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for her claim for damage to her property resulting from Hurricane Ian. Defendant maintained its position on the denial of coverage based on the policy’s exclusion for damage caused by wear and tear and deterioration, and the lack of any evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rainwater to enter the property. In advance of her deposition, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
FPP Managing Partner Anthony Perez and Junior Partner Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Marisel Cabrera v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for her claim for damage to her property resulting from Hurricane Irma. Defendant maintained its position that its ability to investigate the loss had been prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure to report the loss until almost 3 years later, and the fact that the roof had been repaired and painted prior to the reporting the claim. In advance of the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert engineer, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
FPP Managing Partner Anthony Perez and Junior Partner Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Segundo Sosa v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for his claim for damage to his property resulting from Tropical Storm Eta. Defendant maintained its position on the denial of coverage based on the policy’s exclusion for damage caused by wear and tear and deterioration, and the lack of any evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rainwater to enter the property. Following the deposition of the insured, during which Mr. Teijelo secured favorable testimony in support of Defendant’s position, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
FPP Managing Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Keyondra Parrish secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Dade Mold Inspectors a/a/o Sun Dream Home v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for its claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, as Plaintiff knew or should have known that Defendant had fulfilled its obligations concerning payment to Plaintiff consistent with the policy. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
FPP Managing Partner Anthony Perez and Junior Partner Cristina Sevilla secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Juana Navarro v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for her claim for damage to her property resulting from a roof leak. Defendant maintained its position on the denial of coverage based on the policy’s exclusion for existing damage, as Defendant had previously issued payment to Plaintiff for the replacement of the roof. While Plaintiff alleged that she had replaced the roof with the payment received from Defendant pursuant to her prior claim, Defendant asserted that Plaintiff had not replaced the roof and was attempting to mislead Defendant in an attempt to secure a second payment from Defendant for the same roof. Following Defendant’s discovery that Plaintiff had submitted a fake invoice for the replacement of the roof, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
FPP Managing Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Partner Karma Hall secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled You Restorations LLC a/a/o Johnny Tejada v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for services rendered by Plaintiff pursuant to an assignment of benefits following Tropical Storm Elsa. Defendant maintained its position on the denial of coverage based on the policy’s exclusion for damage caused by wear and tear and deterioration, and the lack of any evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rainwater to enter the property. On the eve of trial, after three years of litigation, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES – ORDER REVERSED
The Fourth DCA Reversed Interlocutory Order Granting Leave to Amend for Punitive Damages in Robertson v. Antoine (4D2025-0851). Our Appellate Partner, Bonnie Sack, and Appellate Director, Daniel Weinger, took advantage of the 2022 amendment to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.130, and sought immediate review of the trial court’s interlocutory order granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend to add a claim for punitive damages. In this car versus forklift traffic accident case, the trial court granted leave to amend finding the defendant’s deposition testimony that he knew he was operating the forklift in violation of traffic laws supported a claim for punitive damages based on “intentional misconduct” under § 768.72(2)(a), Fla. Stat. On appeal, our appellate team successfully argued that plaintiff improperly plead her punitive damages claim as a stand-alone count and the evidence that the forklift operator violated traffic laws, without more, failed to demonstrate intentional misconduct or gross negligence under § 768.72, Fla. Stat. We argued that punitive damages are reserved for truly culpable conduct and the required level of negligence for punitive damages is equivalent to the conduct involved in criminal manslaughter, not here where the forklift operator was trying to perform his job as safely as possible. The majority held that the evidence only showed general intent to violate traffic laws and did not show the specific intent to knowingly engage in wrongful conduct with knowledge of the high probability of injury to the plaintiff. The dissent opined that knowingly operating a forklift against the flow of traffic could be considered “gross negligence” but agreed that the proffer did not support a finding of “intentional misconduct.” This published opinion sets precedent that punitive damages are reserved for outrageous conduct, malicious motive, or wrongful intention, not ordinary negligence. Our appellate team jumps into action to analyze the viability of an immediate appeal of an interlocutory order granting a plaintiff leave to amend to claim punitive damages.Jessalea Shettle obtained a Final Summary Judgment and Final Declaratory Judgment in a coverage matter entitled Progressive American Insurance Company v. Allen Robert Grove, et al. Allan Thomas and Vivian Grove were allegedly injured in an automobile accident involving Vivian Thomas and filed suit against Ms. Thomas in Broward County, Florida. Vivian Thomas obtained a personal automobile insurance policy from Progressive, which was cancelled due to non-payment three days before Ms. Thomas was involved in the automobile accident with the Groves. Pre-Suit, Progressive denied coverage for the loss on the basis that the policy was not in effect on the date of loss. Following the filing of the lawsuit by the Groves, Progressive provided a defense under reservation of rights to Ms. Thomas, and retained Ms. Shettle to initiate a declaratory judgment action requesting the Court find as a matter of law the policy was properly cancelled in accordance with the applicable Florida Statutes and Progressive had no duty to defend or indemnify Ms. Thomas for the subject loss. Allan and Sally Grove disputed Progressive’s position, retaining attorney Gregg Silverstein to argue that Progressive failed to follow the proper Florida Statutes resulting in an invalid policy cancellation and argued the payments sought by Progressive were improper. Ms. Shettle was able to place irrefutable evidence in the record through Progressive corporate representative depositions that proper mailing and notice procedures were filed by Progressive in accordance with Fla. Stat. 627.728 resulting in a favorable declaratory judgment being entered on behalf of Progressive, removing any obligation to provide a defense or indemnification for the underlying bodily injury lawsuit.
First-Party Property (FPP) Managing Partner Anthony Perez and Junior Partner Alec Teijelo secured final summary judgment in the matter styled Gabriel Gonzalez et al v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for their claim for damage to their property resulting from Tropical Storm Eta. Defendant filed its motion for final summary judgment, maintaining its position on the denial of coverage based on the policy’s exclusion for damage caused by wear and tear and deterioration, and the lack of any evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rainwater to enter the property. Defendant’s motion was granted, final summary judgment was entered in favor of Defendant.
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.
Martindale-Hubbell and martindale.com are registered trademarks, Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings is a trademark and Lawyers.com is a service mark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. AV, BV and CV are registered certification marks and AV Preeminent and BV Distinguished are certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. Copyright 2009 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
by tdburns, llc. - website designer, ft. lauderdale, fl