Premise Liability; Negligent Entrustment

Santaniello, Daniel J.; Petrillo, Angelise M.

The Law Offices of Jonathan C. Capp (Jonathan Capp)

Defense Verdict

Santaniello, Daniel J.; Sato, Franklin H.; Petrillo, Angelise M.

Colgan Dominelli Law (Gabriel Dominelli and Wes Colgan), David Strong Law (David Strong)

Defense Verdict

Managing Partner Daniel Santaniello, Esq., Senior Partner Franklin Sato, Esq., and Junior Partner Angelise Petrillo, Esq., obtained a defense verdict on 12/15/2022 in a negligent security matter styled Plaintiff v. Defendant Retail Store. The lawsuit arose out of a criminal assault in the parking lot of Defendant’s Retail Store in Palm Beach County.  Plaintiff was the victim of an attempted robbery and battery after Plaintiff had asked to be escorted out by a Defendant Retail Store’s employee due to her alleged in-store interactions with both assailants.  Plaintiff exited the store and was loading her vehicle in the parking lot when the two criminal assailant non-parties attacked her with a tire iron and billie club.  Plaintiff was allegedly beaten fifty times while the assailants attempted to separate her from her purse.  The entire attack was caught on parking lot surveillance and showed Plaintiff being hit and struck on her head, body, and arms as she was being dragged along the parking lot pavement. 

 

Plaintiff’s security expert, Al Ortenzo attempted to testify that there was at least five prior incidents on the subject property that were substantially similar and sufficient to create both subjective and objective foreseeability. The defense strategically combed through each of these instances with both the Plaintiff’s security expert and the Defense’s security expert, W. Kenneth Katsaris before the jury, and ultimately obtained testimony from each expert that the prior incidents, i.e. shoplifting and cell phone snatching, were not sufficient to establish foreseeability of violent crimes such as the one at issue. Mr. Ortenzo further testified and supported the defense’s position that a security guard wouldn’t have necessarily been on notice of the subject incident nor would the security guard been able to prevent same. 

 

Plaintiff claimed multiple injuries from the attack.  She received multiple staples along the backside of her head and testified that she was bleeding so much that it looked like she was wearing a red wig. Plaintiff also alleged the following injuries and underwent corresponding medical treatment:  Cervical, Rotator Cuffs (physical therapy), Scarring (21 “dents”/scars all over her head under her hair), Traumatic Brain Injury, Post-Concussion Syndrome, problems with speech (slurring and mispronunciation), vision (black spots left eye), hearing (constant buzzing), short term memory loss (due to early onset dementia), Depression  and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (according to Psychologist, Dr. Iglesias and Neuropsychologist, Dr. Hirsch), PTSD (also per Dr. Iglesias and Dr. Hirsch for which she is attempting to get a German Shepard companion dog trained), nausea, fatigue, and pain and suffering (both past and future). She also underwent an ACDF at C5-7 on 3/27/14 by letter of protection with Dr. David Campbell who also issued Plaintiff a 9% impairment for cervical injuries due to the subject attack. The Defense’s experts all refuted Plaintiff’s allegations and provided evidence and testimony that same was not as a result of the criminal attack but due to Plaintiff’s pre-existing and ongoing medical issues and conditions. 

 

In terms of special damages, Plaintiff alleged approximately $223,000.00 in past medical specials, $470,257.00 in future medical specials, $500,000.00 for pain and suffering for the incident itself, and $4,000,000.00 ($1,000,000.00 per decade) for future pain and suffering. The total damages requested by the Plaintiff were $5,193,257.20. The Defense suggested approximately $45,000.00 in special damages to the jury should they find liability. 

 

Over the course of two weeks more than 20 witnesses were called to this trial, including 11 experts. The defense employed two key strategies to deal with the sympathy/prejudice associated with a plaintiff that was a victim of a crime and a reasonable pain and suffering. These strategies were employed in jury selection and closing arguments and helped deliver a verdict wherein the jury gave a complete defense verdict.  Read More. 

Menendez-Aponte, Luis; Santaniello, Daniel J.

Menendez Trial Attorneys (Jose M. Menendez); Ralph O. Anderson, P.A. (Ralph Anderson)

Net Verdict of $590,751

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.  

Premise Liability; Wrongful Death

Luks, Jack D.; Janowitz, Allison Ilene; Vazquez-Aldana, Jacqueline

Eriksen Law Firm (Michael D. Eriksen); Crary Buchanan (David Knight)

Sellars, Marion & Bachi, P.A. (Lauri A. Primus, Co-Defendant Counsel on behalf of Driver)

Complete Defense Verdict

 

Founding Partner Jack D. Luks, Esq., and Senior Partner Allison I. Janowitz, Esq., obtained a full defense verdict on February 2, 2024 in a wrongful death action styled Plaintiff, as Personal Representative of the Estate of  Plaintiff Decedent v. Defendant Retail Mall and  Co-Defendant Driver. The lawsuit arose out of an accident that occurred on December 24, 2020 in the Defendant Retail Mall's parking lot. The decedent was severely injured when a vehicle made a left turn from the inner perimeter road into a parking aisle striking the decedent while he was walking across the parking aisle. Due to the injuries he sustained, the decedent did not regain consciousness and  passed away several days later.

Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant – our client – Mall negligently maintained its parking lot area and, as a result, was the direct cause of the incident. In arguments, Plaintiff attempted to establish liability based on failure to have additional crosswalks, stops signs and other safety traffic control devices in its parking lot. Nonetheless, in depositions, it was established that the Co-Defendant driver, was at a complete stop prior to making the left turn and was also familiar with the parking lot layout as he had been visiting the Mall since 1987. This key testimony aided in dismantling Plaintiff’s theory that the Mall was negligent in its design of its parking lot, which was the cause of the accident and injuries alleged.  The Mall argued that the inclusion of most of the traffic control devices recommended by the Plaintiff’s liability experts would not have altered the outcome of the accident.

Further, Defense expert, Roland Lamb, testified that based on his expertise and experience, the parking lot design was reasonable. Despite naming the driver as a Co-Defendant, Plaintiff's counsel continued to argue that the driver should not bear any responsibility for the accident and solely focused Plaintiff's case on the Mall as the responsible party.  Trial partners Jack D. Luks, and Allison I. Janowitz highlighted this fact coupled with their position that the Mall was not negligent in its parking lot design and/or it was not a legal cause of the accident.

Following closing arguments, the jury deliberated for two hours and returned a complete Defense verdict establishing that Defendant Mall and Co-Defendant driver were not the legal cause of loss or damage.

Brandon, Adam C; Michienzie, Paul

Keches Law Group (Jonathan D. Sweet and Patrick J. Nelligan)

Boston Managing Partner Paul Michienzie and Junior Partner, Adam C. Brandon successfully argued for dismissal of all claims against our client, Everett Property, LLC (“EPL”) in the premises liability / personal injury matter styled Bernabe and Humberto v. Everett Property, LLC, et al. pending in Essex Superior Court, MA. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were injured while moving heavy panes of glass into a warehouse leased by EPL. The thrust of our argument for dismissal was that as lessee of the warehouse, EPL did not owe a duty to the plaintiffs to prevent injury under the circumstances alleged because the instrumentality of the alleged harm was unrelated to any feature of the premises, i.e. property structure or grounds. Notably, the Court’s 6 page order not only granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety, but denied the plaintiffs an opportunity to further amend their complaint to assert a basis for liability against Everett Property, LLC absent the discovery of factual support to do so.  Plaintiffs’ action continues against the remaining and separately represented general contractor and subcontractor at the warehouse site. Read More.

Block & Scarpa (Michael Kissner; Eric Eber)

Motion to Strike Medical Bills granted

Stuart Partner Nora Bailey, Esq., prevailed on a Motion to Strike the Plaintiff’s medical bills in a motor vehicle/personal injury matter styled Plaintiff v. Day Boat Seafood. Plaintiff received treatment after a rear-end accident from Dr. Kyle Moyles, who then operated on him at Intracoastal Surgery Center. Dr. Moyles failed to disclose his ownership interest in the surgical center to the Plaintiff, in violation of section 456.052, Fla. Stat. (2023). Accordingly, pursuant to section 456.053, Dr. Moyles’ bills were uncollectable due to his failure to comply with the disclosure requirements. Judge Waronicki found that because he failed to provide the required disclosures and his bills were therefore uncollectable, all charges related to Dr. Moyles and his practice, Blackstone Hand Center, were stricken and could not be presented to the jury at trial as it would result in an unfair windfall to the Plaintiff. This reduced boardable bills in the case by almost $60,000.00 and eliminated the ability for the Plaintiff to claim multiple hand/wrist surgeries as damages. Read More.

Waggener Law, PLLC (Christopher Waggener)

Motion for Final Summary Judgment granted

Cernitz Law (Adam Feldman)

Summary Judgment

Tampa Associate Julian A. Brathwaite-Pierre, Esq. secured summary judgment in the First-Party Property matter styled Karen Soto Vega v. Defendant Insurance Company after argument at hearing on April 6, 2023. The Defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the Plaintiff’s admission at her deposition that neither she, nor anyone acting on her behalf, had ever identified the alleged A/C leak that led to microbial mold growth in her home.

 

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a last-minute response to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, attempting to create issues of fact using Plaintiff’s affidavit, as well as the affidavit of her chosen Public Adjuster. In response, Mr. Brathwaite prepared a Motion to Strike the affidavits, which the Court allowed to be incorporated into the argument made in support of Defense’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

 

After striking the affidavits of Plaintiff and her Public Adjuster, the Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment. Read More.

Weisser Elazar & Kantor, PLLC (Allison Hearn)

Voluntary Dismissal

Tampa Associate Julian A. Brathwaite-Pierre, Esq., moved for summary judgment in the First-Party Property matter styled Moldguard USA Corp. a/a/o Karen Soto Vega v. Defendant Insurance Company. Defense filed the Motion for Summary Judgment based on the Insured’s admission at her deposition that neither she, nor anyone acting on her behalf, had ever identified the alleged A/C leak that led to microbial mold growth in her home. Additionally, at the deposition of the Plaintiff’s Corporate Representative, it was also elicited that they did not make any cause and origin determinations, nor could they establish that their services were provided in connection with a covered loss.

 

Plaintiff was unresponsive in getting the Motion for Summary Judgment set for a hearing. However, after invoking the Court’s unilateral hearing setting procedures, Plaintiff finally agreed to a hearing date of August 8, 2023. However, on June 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of Voluntary Dismissal, rather than attempt to overcome the motion. Read More.

Makris & Mullinax, P.A. (Matthew Mullinax)

Summary Judgment

Tampa Associate Julian A. Brathwaite-Pierre, Esq., secured summary judgment in the First-Party Property matter styled Leila Wilson v. Defendant Insurance Company after continued argument at hearing on June 12, 2023. The Defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the Plaintiff’s admission at her deposition that neither she, nor anyone acting on her behalf, had ever been on her roof prior to the alleged windstorm that caused damage to her roof. Additionally, the Plaintiff’s Daughter, who was also the tenant at the subject property for over a decade, provided deposition testimony that made it clear there was a question as to what the actual date of loss was.

 

It was also argued that Plaintiff’s experts’ opinions in opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment were not sufficient enough to create any issue of material fact, as the report, and affidavits provided were conclusory in nature and did not articulate in a manner satisfactory to the Court why Defendant’s expert’s opinion that the damage to the 30-year-old roof was simple wear and tear.

 

This was a unique situation, as this matter was transferred to Luks & Santaniello from another firm 10 days prior to Non-Binding Arbitration, and with the Summary Judgment Motion hearing being continued from March of 2023, prior to the transfer. Even with short notice, Mr. Brathwaite was able to prepare for and prevail at the continued hearing on the Defense’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Read More.

Your Insurance Attorney, PLLC (J. Michael Kelly)

Dismissal

Tampa Associate Julian A. Brathwaite-Pierre, Esq., secured a dismissal on April 10, 2023, in the First-Party Property matter styled Truview Mold, LLC a/a/o Jordan Lloyd v. Defendant Insurance Company. Defense filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice based on the Plaintiff’s standing as an assignee of benefits. Specifically, the assignment of benefits attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint did not contain within it an itemized per-unit estimate of the services that were to be provided within the four corners of the agreement. Instead, the Plaintiff attached an invoice that was prepared after the date the assignment of benefits was executed by the Insured and the work completed, as an additional exhibit to the Complaint.

 

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a written response in opposition to the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss, arguing that because Plaintiff’s Assignment of Benefits Agreement referenced generally a forthcoming estimate of services, the invoice attached to the Complaint as an exhibit was incorporated by reference, and therefore contained within the Assignment of Benefits Agreement.

 

The Court was not swayed by the Plaintiff’s argument and dismissed the matter with prejudice. Read More.

Your Insurance Attorney, PLLC (J. Michael Kelly)

Dismissal

Tampa Associate Julian A. Brathwaite-Pierre, Esq., secured a dismissal on April 10, 2023, in the First-Party Property matter styled Truview Mold, LLC a/a/o Otoniel Cutino v. Defendant Insurance Company. Defense filed a Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice based on the Plaintiff’s standing as an assignee of benefits. Specifically, the assignment of benefits attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint did did not contain within it an itemized per-unit estimate of the services that were to be provided within the four corners of the agreement. Instead, the Plaintiff attached an invoice that was prepared after the date the assignment of benefits was executed by the Insured and the work completed, as an additional exhibit to the Complaint.

 

At the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s counsel argued in opposition to the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss that because Plaintiff’s Assignment of Benefits Agreement referenced generally a forthcoming estimate of services, the invoice attached to the Complaint as an exhibit was incorporated by reference, and therefore contained within the Assignment of Benefits Agreement.

 

The Court was not swayed by the Plaintiff’s argument and dismissed the matter with prejudice. In the Court’s Order, it was expressly stated that the Court found that “. . . . paragraph two of the Assignment of Benefits Agreement attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint does not satisfy 627.7152(2)(a)(5) Fla. Stat. by referencing, generally, that Plaintiff will provide an invoice for services and Plaintiff attaching an invoice for $1,500.00 dated February 15, 2022 to the Complaint as an exhibit 2.” Read More.

The Cardenas Law Group, LLC

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Gail & Andrew Luchey v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the commercial insurance contract by denying coverage for their claim for damage to their quadruplex resulting from Hurricane Irma. Following the depositions of the Plaintiffs and their public adjuster, during which Mr. Perez secured favorable testimony, and in advance of an approaching trial, Plaintiffs dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More.

The Florida Insurance Law Group, LLC

Dismissal

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., secured a dismissal in the matter styled The Kidwell Group, LLC d/b/a Air Quality Assessors of Florida a/a/o Lynda Masters v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the commercial insurance contract by denying coverage for its claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured triplex pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, and its Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, contending that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations, as the assignment was executed more than three years after Hurricane Irma. Defendant relied on Florida Statute §627.70132, which requires notice of a hurricane claim be provided within three years of the date of loss. Just before the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.

The Florida Insurance Law Group, LLC

Dismissal

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., secured a dismissal in the matter styled The Kidwell Group, LLC d/b/a Air Quality Assessors of Florida a/a/o Saksams Investments, Inc. v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit pursuant to an assignment of benefits alleging that Defendant breached the commercial insurance contract by denying coverage for its claim for payment for an engineering report concerning damage to a shopping center from a tornado. Defendant filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment, and its Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, contending that the preparation of an engineering report did not constitute a direct physical loss covered by the commercial wind-only policy, and that Plaintiff’s purported assignment agreement failed to comply with Florida Statute §627.7152, and was therefore invalid and unenforceable, rendering Plaintiff without standing to maintain the lawsuit. Minutes before the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Plaintiff then reimbursed Defendant for the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred defending Plaintiff’s frivolous claims, pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105. Read More.

Jimenez & Carrillo, LLC

Dismissal

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., secured a dismissal in the matter styled Quality Assessments & Logistics, LLC a/a/o Eduardo Vazquez v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, challenging the validity of the purported assignment, contending that it failed to comply with Florida Statute §627.7152, was therefore invalid and unenforceable, and thus rendered Plaintiff without standing to maintain the lawsuit. Defendant’s motion was granted, as the purported assignment agreement did not contain the requisite written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee. Read More.

Perez, Anthony; Teijelo, Alec A

The Property Advocates, P.A.

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Pavel Figueredo 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 a kitchen leak, and then subsequently sold the property. Defendant filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment, asserting that there was neither any evidence of out of pocket expenses incurred for repairs related to the claimed damage, nor any credits or other impact on the sale of the property related to the claimed damage, thus no evidence of any compensable damages, an essential element of a claim for breach of contract. Following the deposition of the insured, during which Mr. Teijelo secured favorable testimony in support of Defendant’s position, and upon receipt of Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More.

Perez, Anthony; Teijelo, Alec A

MSPG Law Group, P.A.

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Jose Fabregas & Luz Montenegro 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 a kitchen leak. Following the deposition of the insured, during which Mr. Teijelo secured favorable testimony in support of Defendant’s position, Defendant filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment, arguing that the damage was the result of constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water and therefore excluded form coverage under the policy. Just minutes before the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More.

Perez, Anthony; Teijelo, Alec A

Duboff Law Firm

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Jacqueline Varela 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 kitchen leak. Following the deposition of the insured, during which Mr. Teijelo secured favorable testimony in support of Defendant’s position, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the damage was the result of constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water and therefore excluded form coverage under the policy. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More.

Perez, Anthony; Teijelo, Alec A

Law Offices of Marcote & Marcote De Moya, PLLC

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled AFCAM Group Corp d/b/a AFCAM Restoration a/a/o Jacqueline Varela v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, challenging the validity of the purported assignment, contending that it failed to comply with Florida Statute §627.7152, was therefore invalid and unenforceable, thus rendering Plaintiff without standing to maintain the lawsuit. Defendant’s motion was granted, as the purported assignment agreement did not contain the necessary rescission language. Read More.