Verdicts by Location: Miami
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.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.
Nursing Home Negligence and Violating of Section 400.022 Residential Rights – Plaintiff requested $1.8M in damages -Defense Verdict
On April 29, 2025, Miami Partner, Scott Kirschbaum and Miami Senior Associate Christine Soto obtained a defense verdict in a nursing home negligence matter styled Plaintiff, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Decedent vs. Arch Plaza, Inc., a Florida Corporation, d/b/a Arch Plaza Nursing & Rehabilitation Center. The Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, Arch Plaza, alleging violation of Section 400.022 and Negligence under Chapter 400.023-400.0238. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, a skilled nursing facility, failed to provide reasonable and adequate care to its resident, Decedent. As a result of this alleged negligence, a pressure ulcer located on Decedent’s sacral region progressed to a Stage 4 wound. The severity of the wound ultimately led to a bone infection (osteomyelitis), necessitating the surgical removal of her coccyx.
The Defense denied all allegations of negligence. At trial, the Defense presented testimony from an expert wound care nurse who testified regarding the prognosis and typical progression of a deep tissue injury (DTI) which had developed prior to Decedent’s admission to Arch Plaza. Additionally, the defense presented the testimony of an expert internal medicine physician who testified that the subsequent infection was nearly inevitable due to the wound’s anatomical location and the resident’s underlying comorbid conditions. He concluded that no additional medical intervention could have reasonably prevented the infection. The Plaintiff asked the jury to award $1.8 million in damages. After only one-and-a-half hours of deliberation, the jury returned a complete defense verdict.
On October 16, 2024, after having heard oral argument, the Third District Court of Appeal rendered a per curiam opinion affirming the trial court’s order granting involuntary dismissal after a non-jury trial in the matter styled PAJ Investment Group, LLC v. El Lago N.W. 7th Condominium Association, Inc. The case arose out of a dispute over easement rights to access and fill adjoining submerged lands which had been under contract for over $30 million dollars. The Plaintiff sought to sell the submerged property to a developer, fill in the lake, and build over 600 condominium units. To do so, the Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment from the Court that the easements were appurtenant and granted them unfettered access to the easements on our client’s land for the purposes of developing their adjoining property, along with an injunction which would have our client tear down their gates and surrender large portions of their parking lot to the Plaintiff. Senior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte and Senior Associate Lucas Gargaglione successfully defended the condominium complex against the adjoining landowner/developer by establishing that the easements were in gross. The issue on appeal was whether the easements are appurtenant or in gross. On appeal, PAJ argued that the easements were appurtenant because they are perpetual, non-exclusive, granted ingress and egress, and allowed for other permissible uses, all of which would be essential to development of the property. While Senior Appellate Partner, Edgardo Ferreyra, Jr., on behalf of the Association maintained that the easements were in gross, because the prior easement holder did not own any property, and therefore, not attached to an estate, as well as that the language of the easements did not reference any dominant estate. The appellate court agreed with the Association, finding that the easements were not connected to a dominant and the prior easement holder did not own the dominant tenement. Thus, an easement appurtenant never comes into existence. Although easements in gross are not favored by the common law the Third District noted that it could not ignore the fact that the necessary elements of easements appurtenant were missing. Accordingly, it affirmed the trial court’s involuntary dismissal of this case.
On September 17, 2024, Miami Partners Otto Espino and Karma Hall obtained a defense verdict in a First-Party Property matter styled Jesus Guerra v. Defendant Insurance Company. The plaintiff filed suit against defendant alleging breach of contract in failing to pay benefits for a Hurricane Irma claim.
Plaintiff alleged he suffered roof damages and ensuing rain water leaks at his home as a result of the hurricane on Sept. 10, 2017. However, the first notice of the claim was provided to Defendant on Mar. 20, 2019, about 18 months later. During Defendant’ s inspection, the water damages inside the home were significant and advanced. However, the roof inspection did not find any wind-related damages. Defendant contended plaintiff let the damages worsen since the date of loss and had failed to properly protect the property from continued water damages. Prejudice from the failure to protect the property and mitigate damages was Defendant’s first affirmative defense.
At trial, the defense presented testimony from Ryon Plancer, P.E. while plaintiff presented testimony from Chris Thompson, P.E. The experts agreed as to the general weather conditions related to the storm. Both agreed the continued rain water intrusions would worsen damages.
The experts disputed whether there were any storm damages. At the close of the defendant’s case, the Court entered a partial directed verdict finding that notice was deemed late as a matter of law. The Court instructed the jury that they were only to consider whether plaintiff had removed defendant’s presumed prejudice from this late notice. The jury deliberated for one hour before returning a defense verdict on the issue of prejudice. Post trial motions are pending. The defense is entitled to prevailing party costs and will be seeking recovery of attorney fees based on a proposal for settlement. Read More.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Junior Partner Cristina Sevilla secured final summary judgment in the matter styled Mercedes Mejia 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. As Plaintiffs reported their claim 1 ½ years after Tropical Storm Eta, and made repairs to the roof and interior of their property prior to reporting the claim, Defendant filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs had failed to comply with the policy’s duties after loss, failed to provide prompt notice of the loss, and prejudiced Defendant’s investigation of the loss. Defendant’s Motion was granted, as the Court found that Defendant was entitled to a presumption of prejudice, and that Plaintiffs failed to rebut that prejudice, as the Affidavit of Guillermo Salinas on which Plaintiffs relied was conclusory, unsupported, and insufficient. Final Summary Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant. Read More.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Brickhouse Inspections, Inc. a/a/o Shameka Murphy 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. Just minutes before the hearing on Defendant’s motion, the case was dismissed with prejudice. Read More
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Associate Brittany Pryce secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Hilda Irene Lopez v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for her claim for damage to the roof and interior of her property resulting from a windstorm. Defendant maintained its position on the denial of coverage based on the policy’s exclusion for damage caused by wear and tear, 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 the hearing on Defendant’s motion for order to show cause regarding Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Tallahassee Associate Zuriel Denmark secured a dismissal with prejudice in the Leon County matter styled Gloria Gonzalez v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for her claim for damage to the roof and interior of her property resulting from a windstorm. During mediation, Plaintiff was shown evidence of existing damage to her roof that directly contradicted the allegations asserted in this lawsuit. Plaintiff immediately dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Junior Partner Cristina Sevilla secured final summary judgment in the matter styled Father & Son Carpet Cleaning & Restoration LLC a/a/o Danay Cordova 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, maintaining the position that the services rendered by Plaintiff were subject to the policy’s sublimit applying to reasonable emergency measures, and that Defendant had fulfilled its obligations by exhausting that limit with its payment to Plaintiff. Defendant’s motion was granted, and Plaintiff reimbursed Defendant for the costs incurred defending this lawsuit.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Keyondra Parrish secured a dismissal with prejudice in the Lee County matter styled Gerald Joseph 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 plumbing leak. Defendant asserted its position that the claimed damage resulted from constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water and was therefore excluded from coverage. Just before his deposition, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Precise Home Inspection Services LLC a/a/o Fernando & Juana Suarez-Solis 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 Summary Judgment, as Plaintiff’s supplemental claim stemmed from a purported assignment executed more than three years after Hurricane Irma, and was thus barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Florida Statute §627.70132. On the eve of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Pedro Monteagudo 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 Hurricane Ian. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that the damage to the roof was caused by wear and tear, and that there was no evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rainwater to enter the property. Following the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert, during which Mr. Perez secured favorable testimony in support of Defendant’s position, and in advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled 24/7 Restoration Group Corp a/a/o Pedro Monteagudo 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 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. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Jose Ferrufino et al v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for their claim for damage resulting from an AC leak. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, based on the policy’s exclusions for existing damage and inadequate maintenance. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Ramon Fernandez 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 Hurricane Irma. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, maintaining the position that Plaintiff failed to comply with his duty to provide prompt notice of the claim, and that its investigation of the claim was prejudiced by Plaintiff not reporting his claim until two years after the loss. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff dismissed the case.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Rene Su 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 roof leak. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, based on the insurance policy’s exclusion for damage caused by wear and tear, and the lack of any evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rain water to enter the property. Defendant also filed its Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Plaintiff’s Expert, arguing that the affidavit was speculative, conclusory, and legally insufficient. Just before the hearing on Defendant’s Motions, Plaintiff dismissed the case.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained summary judgment in the matter styled Virginia Baist 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 plumbing leak in her kitchen. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, based on the insurance policy’s exclusion for damage caused by constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water. Upon receipt of the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew from the case, and Plaintiff proceeded pro se. Finding an absence of evidence to support Plaintiff’s case, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Sue Demmings v. Defendant Insurance Company 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 filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting the argument that Plaintiff failed to comply with her duty to provide prompt notice of the claim, and that its investigation of the claim was prejudiced by Plaintiff not reporting her claim until two years after the loss. Just before the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff dismissed the case.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matterstyled Emergency Mold & Water Remediation, LLC a/a/o Betsy Fernandez & Alejandro Marquez 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 for Summary Judgment, arguing that the purported assignment of benefits was invalid and unenforceable, as the insured had no benefits left to assign at the time it was executed, and thus Plaintiff lacked standing. On the eve of the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff dismissed the case.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Miriam Muniz 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 Tropical Storm Gordon. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, based on the insurance policy’s exclusion for damage caused by wear and tear, and the lack of any evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rain water to enter the property. Upon receipt of the motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled South Florida Restoration Service a/a/o Kendale Woods North Condominium Association 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 more than $140,000 in services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, and served Plaintiff with its Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, arguing that the purported assignment failed to comply with Florida Statute Section 627.7152, was therefore invalid and unenforceable, and thus Plaintiff lacked standing to file suit. Upon receipt of the motions, Plaintiff dismissed the case.
On January 12, 2022, Miami Senior Partner, Jorge Padilla, Esq., secured final summary judgment in a first-party insurance case styled Projekt Property Restoration, Inc., a/a/o Yessenia & Andres Arias v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff, the assignee of the named insured, made a claim against the insured’s homeowner’s insurance carrier arising out of water damage mitigation services rendered in connection with a loss that reportedly occurred as a result of Hurricane Irma. Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim due to the absence of any evidence of wind damage to the home.
Seeking substantial damages, including attorney’s fees costs, Plaintiff alleged that the denial of their claim constituted a breach of the insured’s homeowner’s insurance policy. By employing an aggressive discovery approach, Mr. Padilla was able to get Plaintiff’s causation expert stricken pursuant to Daubert.. After securing that ruling, Mr. Padilla filed a motion for final summary judgment. In response to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs argued that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a material issue of fact – issues that were thoroughly briefed by Mr. Padilla and ultimately rejected by the Court. Mr. Padilla is now pursuing a claim for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to a proposal for settlement that he served early in the litigation.
In matter styled Timothy and Dorothy Maxwell v. Centauri Specialty Insurance Company, after approximately two years of extensive litigation and appeals, Junior Partners Jonah Kaplan, Esq., and Edgardo Ferreyra, Esq., successfully obtained a ruling by the 4th DCA upholding a Broward Court Order granting Centauri’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which capped the Plaintiffs’ damages from a plumbing loss to $10,000 based on Centauri’s Limited Water Damage Coverage endorsement. Accordingly, the 4th DCA upheld the summary judgment that the $10,000 cap includes “tear out” and access costs.
Prior to the lawsuit, Centauri issued payment to the Plaintiffs for the alleged loss in the amount of $10,000. Plaintiffs alleged they were entitled to recover for “tear-out” based on the Policy. The Plaintiffs’ pre-suit demand on May 24, 2019 was $235,000. After Centauri prevailed at Summary Judgment, the Plaintiffs retained additional counsel (Mark Nation) to handle their appeal. Mr. Nation is a well- known hired gun for First Party Plaintiffs’ lawyers.
We note that on February 18, 2022, the 5th DCA in Security First v. Vazquez, ruled specifically that “tear out” was not include in the limited water damage coverage endorsements. Accordingly, homeowners in the 5th DCA can seek recover for “tear-out” costs. Thus, the district courts appear to be split regarding the application of Property insurers’ limited water damage coverage endorsements.
Our litigation and appellate team saved the carrier several hundreds of thousands of dollars on this claim. Furthermore, this is a groundbreaking ruling, which can be utilized by property insurance carriers in the 4th DCA that have similar limited water damage coverage endorsements.
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.
On March 20, 2020, Miami Senior Partner, Jorge Padilla, secured Final Summary Judgment in a First-Party Property case styled Ramon Rodriguez v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiff made a claim against his homeowner’s insurance carrier for a loss that reportedly occurred as a result of Hurricane Irma. Plaintiff’s claim for interior water damage was denied due to the absence of any evidence of wind damage to the home. After engaging in preliminary discovery, Mr. Padilla moved for final summary judgment. In response, Plaintiff’s counsel relied on the deposition testimony of his client, who merely testified that his roof was not leaking prior to the hurricane and commenced leaking approximately three days after it made landfall in Miami-Dade County. Relying on well-settled law that causation cannot be established by post hoc reasoning, Mr. Padilla prevailed on the motion for final summary judgment and is now pursuing a claim for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to a proposal for settlement. Read more
On November 27, 2019, Miami Senior Partner, Jorge Padilla, secured Final Summary Judgment in a First-Party Property case styled Raul Ruiz, et al. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiffs made a claim against their homeowner’s insurance carrier for a loss that reportedly occurred as a result of a ruptured pipe under the slab of their property. Plaintiffs claimed that the tile flooring within their home became un-bonded as a result of water that penetrated the slab of the home. Seeking substantial damages, including attorney’s fees costs, Plaintiffs alleged that the denial of their claim constituted a breach of their homeowner’s insurance policy. By employing an aggressive discovery approach, Mr. Padilla was able to get Plaintiffs’ expert stricken for repeated violations of discovery orders. After securing that ruling, Mr. Padilla filed a motion for final summary judgment. Read more
Miami Partner Kelly Kesner, Esq. and Appellate Partner Edgardo Ferreyra, Esq. obtained an MSJ in the premises liability matter styled Lanza v. Charles Group Hotels, Inc. d/b/a Best Western Plus Atlantic Beach Resort. The case stemmed from a slip and fall in the stairwell of the Best Western Resort. Plaintiff testified that he fell on standing water in the stairwell. Importantly, Plaintiff noted that the water was clean and clear; there were no footprints and no track marks. Read more
On October 17, 2019, Miami Partner Kelly Kesner, Esq. and Appellate Partner Edgardo Ferreyra, Esq. obtained final summary judgement in the matter of JL Shoes v. Downtown Investments Corp. It was alleged by Plaintiff that Hurricane Irma caused damage to the building in which plaintiff leased retail space. The Plaintiff alleged that the building owner negligently maintained the roof, and that as a result, the retail store had been severely damaged causing the loss of the store’s entire inventory of shoes. Plaintiff sought damages for the lost inventory, consequential damages, as well as moving and build out costs. It was successfully argued on behalf of the building owner that Plaintiff had failed to establish with any reasonable degree of certainty the damages that it had suffered. Read more
On July 9, 2019, Miami Partners Heather Calhoon, Esq. and Appellate Partner Edgardo Ferreyra, Esq. obtained final summary judgment in the matter of Butler v. Wolthuis The case involved a motor vehicle versus pedestrian accident. The Plaintiff was struck by the defendant driver as she attempted to cross a busy Miami roadway. Plaintiff alleged severe physical injuries, including a traumatic brain injury. At the summary judgment hearing, it was successfully argued that the plaintiff had failed to produce any record evidence that the driver had been negligently operating his vehicle at the time the incident occurred. Read more
On July 19, 2018, Managing Partner Dan Santaniello, Esq. and Miami Associate Cristina Sevilla, Esq. received a complete defense verdict in a first-party property matter styled German Chavez and Maria Del R Morales v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiffs made a homeowner’s insurance claim alleging their property was damaged as a result of a hot water supply line leak beneath the floor slab. At trial, Plaintiffs offered the expert opinions of Grant Renne, P.E. who testified the water discharge caused tile debondment and foundational damage. Plaintiffs’ loss consultant, Ricardo Tello, estimated the cost of repairs to be in excess of $90,000. While the parties stipulated that an accidental discharge of water beneath the floor slab did occur, Defendant maintained there was no direct physical loss to covered property as a result of the water discharge. Read More
On July 9, 2018, Senior Partners Luis Menendez-Aponte, Esq., Stuart Cohen, Esq. and Senior Associate Matthew W. Van Wie, Esq. obtained Final Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant Global Cargo Alliance Corp. in relation to a trip-and-fall incident in matter styled Gonzalez, Armando & Deliaimar vs. Global Cargo Alliance, Corp. The Plaintiff, a deliveryman, suffered a severe knee injury after he tripped and fell on a concrete riser step which led exclusively into the unit lease by the Defendant. As a result of the fall, the Plaintiff underwent arthroscopic knee surgery to repair the damage, and received a medical recommendation for a second surgery. Read More
This case was a $775,000 subrogation action filed by the condominium association’s insurance company against our client, a unit owner. A dismissal was obtained in light of our arguments relying upon language within subject insurance policy as well as the condominium documents. Read More
Miami Managing Partner Stuart Cohen, Esq. and Senior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte, Esq. obtained a defense verdict on 12/15/2017 in the automobile liability matter styled Arianny Pinero vs. Laura Ruiz. The Defendant admitted negligence in causing the accident, but denied that her negligence was the legal cause of any loss, damage or injury to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff demanded $350,000. The Plaintiff underwent an MRI which revealed a herniation at C3-C4 and a bulge at L4-L5. Read More
In the Appellate Decision styled Obregon v. Rosana Corp, Edgardo Ferreyra, Jr. and Shana Nogues received an opinion from the Third District Court of Appeal affirming Judge Cueto’s Order striking Plaintiff’s pleadings for fraud on the Court and reversing the trial court’s finding that the “legal representatives” in the release attached to the Proposal for Settlement filed by Defendant was ambiguous. Plaintiff/Appellant, who was represented by Rubenstein Law and Wasson & Associates, slipped and fell in Defendant’s restaurant allegedly injuring her neck and back and requiring two spine surgeries performed by Dr. Roush. Read More
On July 20, 2017, Orlando Partner Paul Jones, Esq. and Miami Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte, Esq. obtained a favorable verdict in the slip and fall matter styled Pineda v. Defendant Store. Plaintiff slipped and fell in Defendant’s store from water leaking from melting ice bags. The store had six months of repair work orders from the ice machine producing melting ice leading up to the day of the incident. Plaintiff sustained a large abrasion on her knee from the fall that was captured in photographs. She actively treated with an orthopedic surgeon which ultimately resulted in two surgeries involving her knee and her shoulder. Plaintiff incurred $133,755 in medical bills. At trial, the plaintiff presented documentary evidence and testimony from her orthopedic surgeon that she required additional surgery, including a total knee replacement, from the fall. The plaintiff asked the jury for $330,755. The jury rejected the future care, found the plaintiff 50% at fault for the fall, and declined to award her any pain and suffering damages. The net verdict was approximately $68,000, half of the plaintiff’s final demand before trial. Read More
Miami Associate Edgardo Ferreyra obtained a favorable result on December 21, 2016 when the Third DCA affirmed summary judgment and denial of plaintiff's request to the Florida Supreme Court in the trip and fall matter styled Marilyn Samuels, Appellant, v. Defendant Retail Store, Appellee. The Appellate court granted our motion for Attorneys' Fees and denied Plaintiff's motion for Fees. Read More
Edgardo Ferreyra obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the premises liability matter styled Philip Rotondo v. Defendant Retail Store. The Plaintiff alleged he was pushing a flat bed cart in the flooring aisle when he cut his leg. 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 April 27, 2016, Dan Santaniello and Luis Menendez-Aponte received a defense verdict in an MVA tender rejection case tried where Plaintiffs asked the Jury for $42 million at trial. The case was featured in an article in the Daily Business Review on June 16, 2016, “Miami Driver Avoids Liability in Crash With Drunken Driver” by Celia Ampel. The case styled Clairmeda Simeon as guardian of Vilbrun Simeon and Kedlen Joachim v. Michelett Auguste and Lanea Everett was venued in Miami-Dade County. After eight days of trial and nearly 7 hours of deliberation, the jury entered a Defense verdict for Defendant Michelett Auguste finding that he was not negligent in the operation of his motor vehicle. Plaintiff Simeon is in a persistent vegetative state and Plaintiff Joachim has a permanent seizure disorder. Defendant, Michelette Auguste, was the only party represented who had insurance coverage. Policy limits were tendered but rejected and the case went to trial. The Plaintiffs also presented the testimony of life care planner Lawrence Forman in support of their request for a $19,856,000 life care plan. Through the testimony of the defense engineer Roland Lamb, PE, the defense was able to establish that Plaintiffs’ expert engineer’s analysis was faulty and that the physical evidence supported our version of the accident. Read More
The Miami Office prevailed in the matter styled Sewell v. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. when the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and/or to Strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice on the issue of duty at a Special Set hearing on April 4, 2016. Read More
Managing Partner Dan Santaniello and Miami Junior Partner Dexter Romanez received a favorable verdict in the personal injury matter styled Carlos J. Colman, Sr. v. Defendant Retail Store on March 28, 2016. Plaintiff was struck by an industrial shopping cart loaded with lumber as he exited Defendant Store, when the wheels of the cart got stuck on the threshold at the exit and the lumber fell forward, causing the cart to shoot directly into the plaintiff’s chest. Plaintiff immediately fell to the ground in pain unable to breathe and claimed he sustained injuries to his chest, left shoulder, cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spines. Plaintiff underwent an anterior cervical discectomy with a total disc arthroplasty at C5-6 with Dr. Thomas Roush. Plaintiff was eventually seen by Dr. Kingsley Chin for low back pain and eventually underwent a lumbar decompression with interspinous fixation and fusion at L5-S1 to resolve a disc herniation. Plaintiff claimed permanent limitations performing activities of daily living, including the ability to run or walk without a significant limp. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury for $1,520,000 which included $320,000 for past medical expenses, $200,000 in future medical expenses; and $1 million in past and future pain and suffering. The jury found the Plaintiff 50% comparative negligence. The verdict was 25% less than the Proposal for Settlement and Defendant is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. Read More
Managing Partner Dan Santaniello and Miami Junior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte received a defense verdict on January 8, 2016 in the motor vehicle accident matter styled Evelia Rodriguez v. Humberto Torres. The accident occurred when the Defendant, Humberto Torres, rear-ended the Plaintiff, causing significant property damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Defendant pled the affirmative defense of sudden loss of consciousness. According to the Defendant, the accident happened when he lost consciousness due to the sudden onset of an epileptic seizure, a condition he had never suffered from before this accident. Read More
Managing Partner Dan Santaniello and Miami Junior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte received a defense verdict on December 3, 2015 in a traumatic brain injury Trucking liability lawsuit. Plaintiff, a 37 year old male was involved in a catastrophic intersection accident with an 18 wheeler semi-truck operated by the Defendant driver. Plaintiff’s vehicle was completely destroyed due to the severe impact and the Plaintiff had to be extracted from the vehicle by first responders using the jaws-of-life. After Plaintiff’s release from the hospital, the Plaintiff underwent pain therapy, orthopedic therapy, and began treating with a neurologist Nicholas Suite, MD and neuro-psychologist Alejandro Arias, Psy.D. for alleged traumatic brain injury sustained during the accident. Read More
Junior Partner Jorge Padilla in the Miami office was granted Final Summary Judgment in a negligence action arising out of a slip-and-fall matter styled Ricardo U. Aquino v. The Gardens of Kendall Property Owners Association, Inc., Et Al. on November 2, 2015. Read More
Shana Nogues, Associate obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Dorsey vs. Hertz Corporation & Rosita N. Simmons. The negligence action arose out of an alleged automobile accident on June 5, 2010, but was filed on January 15, 2015, after the expiration of Florida’s four year Statute of Limitations for negligence actions pursuant to Section 95.11, Florida Statutes. Read More
Jorge Padilla, Senior Associate in the Miami office was granted a Motion for Final Summary Judgment in a contract dispute matter styled Monaco Exchange, Inc. vs. Mt. Vernon Fire Insurance. Co. (MVFIC) The Plaintiff is the named insured under a Business Coverage Form policy issued by Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company. The Plaintiff claimed that it sustained a covered loss on or about May 17, 2012, when its principal place of business, a jewelry store, was burglarized and its inventory stolen. Read More
Shana Nogues, Associate obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Dorsey vs. Hertz Corporation & Rosita N. Simmons. The negligence action arose out of an alleged automobile accident on June 5, 2010, but was filed on January 15, 2015, after the expiration of Florida’s four year Statute of Limitations for negligence actions pursuant to Section 95.11, Florida Statutes. Read More
Miami Junior Partner Derek H. Lloyd and Managing Partner Daniel J. Santaniello obtained a defense verdict in a Rear-End collision matter styled Lorenzo Wilson v. Evens Jeune in Miami-Dade County on June 7, 2013. Plaintiff was stopped at an intersection's stop sign when Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff. Liability was admitted prior to trial, and the only issues at trial revolved around damages. Plaintiff alleged that as a result of the accident, Plaintiff suffered multiple disc herniations in cervical spine at C4/5 and C5/6 and lumbar spine at L5/S1, L3/4, L4/5. Plaintiff underwent lumbar spine injections, one injection was done at each level. Dr. Jeffrey Kugler opined that Plaintiff had a 2% impairment to the neck, and a 2% impairment to the back, and stated that his injury was permanent, and causally related to the accident. Additionally, the Plaintiff had a lost wage claim of 5 1/2 weeks. Read More
Paul Ginsburg, Junior Partner of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones obtained a Motion for Final Summary Judgment in the Wrongful Death case styled Estate of Jay C. Ciocon v. J.H.O.C. d/b/a Premier Transportation, Charles Dale Ballew, Eduardo Torres and Ydania Rodriguez, Defendants Eduardo Torres was the driver and Ydania Rodriguez, the owner of a van which was stopped and disabled in the emergency breakdown lane of westbound I-75 just west of Weston Road in Broward County, Florida. Read More
Bus Doors Shut on Plaintiff (Miami-Dade County, Defense Verdict, June 17, 2011). Read More
Shot to Death by Unknown Assailant, Miami-Dade County, Howard Holden, Junior Partner and Daniel Santaniello, Managing Partner, Settled, April 29, 2011. Read More
Victim Targeted Crime with 3 Innocent Shooting Victims, Miami-Dade County, Howard Holden, Junior Partner and Daniel Santaniello, Managing Partner, Settled, April 29, 2011. Read More