Skip to main content

verdicts

Case:
Gail & Andrew Luchey v Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
The Cardenas Law Group, LLC
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
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.
Case:
The Kidwell Group, LLC d/b/a Air Quality Assessors of Florida a/a/o Lynda Masters v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
The Florida Insurance Law Group, LLC
Result:
Dismissal
Summary:
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.
Case:
The Kidwell Group, LLC d/b/a Air Quality Assessors of Florida a/a/o Saksams Investments, Inc. v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
The Florida Insurance Law Group, LLC
Result:
Dismissal
Summary:
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.
Case:
Quality Assessments & Logistics, LLC a/a/o Eduardo Vazquez v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Jimenez & Carrillo, LLC
Result:
Dismissal
Summary:
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.
Case:
Pavel Figueredo v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
The Property Advocates, P.A.
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
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.
Case:
Jose Fabregas & Luz Montenegro v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
MSPG Law Group, P.A.
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
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.
Case:
Jacqueline Varela v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Duboff Law Firm
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
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.
Case:
AFCAM Group Corp d/b/a AFCAM Restoration a/a/o Jacqueline Varela v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Law Offices of Marcote & Marcote De Moya, PLLC
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
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.
Case:
JNE Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Moldone Experts a/a/o Jacqueline Varela v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Peregonza The Attorneys, PLLC
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo, Esq., secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled JNE Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Moldone Experts a/a/o Jacqueline Varela v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage of Plaintiff’s claim for payment relating to a mold assessment conducted at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment, arguing that the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor, that the assignor’s loss was the result of constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water and therefore excluded form coverage under the policy, and that the mold assessment conducted by Plaintiff would only be covered if the costs were a result of a covered peril. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More.
Case:
Carolina & Abraham Anzardo v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Grande Law, P.A.
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Carolina & Abraham Anzardo 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 roof leak. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, maintaining the position that the damage to the roof pre-existed the claimed date of loss, and there was no evidence of a wind created opening in the roof that allowed rainwater to enter the property. Upon receipt of Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More.
Case:
Water Tech Restoration, LLC a/a/o Olga Mederos v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Levy & Partners, PLLC
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Water Tech Restoration, LLC a/a/o Olga Mederos 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, without prejudice, 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. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, attempting to cure the deficiency. Defendant filed its second motion to dismiss, again challenging the validity of the purported assignment, and Plaintiff’s standing to file suit. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s second motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More.
Case:
South Florida Restoration Service, LLC a/a/o Barbara Cabanas v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Velasquez & Associates, P.A.
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled South Florida Restoration Service, LLC a/a/o Barbara Cabanas 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, without prejudice, as the purported assignment agreement did not contain the necessary language, or the requisite written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed by the assignee. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, attempting to cure the deficiencies. Defendant filed its second motion to dismiss, contending that Plaintiff’s purported assignment agreement still failed to comply with Florida Statute §627.7152, and was therefore invalid and unenforceable. Just hours before the hearing on Defendant’s second motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More.
Case:
Orlando Water Mitigation, LLC a/a/o Nino Garboza & Annamora Vargas v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Louis Law Group, PLLC
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Taylor Montanari, Esq., secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Orlando Water Mitigation, LLC a/a/o Nino Garboza & Annamora Vargas 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. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More.
Case:
The Kidwell Group, LLC d/b/a Air Quality Assessors of Florida a/a/o Chamile Rosa. V. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Krapf Legal, P.A.
Result:
Dismissal
Summary:
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., and Associate Taylor Montanari, Esq., secured a dismissal in the matter styled The Kidwell Group, LLC d/b/a Air Quality Assessors of Florida a/a/o Chamile Rosa v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit pursuant to an assignment of benefits alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for its claim for payment for the preparation of an engineering report. Defendant filed its Motion for Final Summary Judgment, contending that the preparation of an engineering report was not covered by the policy, and that Plaintiff’s purported assignment agreement failed to comply with Florida Statute §627.7152, was therefore invalid and unenforceable, and thus rendered Plaintiff without standing to maintain the lawsuit. Plaintiff dismissed the case, and reimbursed Defendant for the costs incurred defending the case. Read More.
Case:
Jose Martinez v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Martin & Randolph PLLC (Sonya P. Randolph)
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:
Three-day jury trial; alleged water leak to a hallway bathroom and alleged drain line failure — Jury returned Defense Verdict
 
On August 18, 2023, after a three-day jury trial, Miami Partners Otto Espino, Esq., and Cristina Sevilla, Esq., obtained a full defense verdict in matter styled Jose Martinez v. Defendant Insurance Company. The lawsuit was based on a denied claim and arose due to an alleged water leak sustained by the Defendant’s Insured (Jose Martinez) to a hallway bathroom where he alleged the drain line had failed. The Insured gutted the bathroom prior to the carrier’s field inspection. The Insured also alleged the same drain line failure caused a backup in the adjoining kitchen, damaging his kitchen cabinets.
 
Defendant contended they were prejudiced by the Insured’s failure to provide the property for inspection before gutting the run and trenching the floor to remove the case iron drain lines. Defendant also defended the denial by arguing cause of loss was excluded per the constant and repeated seepage provision in its policy. This exclusion was based on the remaining building materials that were not removed from the hallway bathroom (i.e. wall studs) and based on the condition of the adjoining kitchen.
 
At trial, Defendant presented the evidence gathered during both its field inspection and engineering inspection. Mr. Espino successfully argued the condition of the bathroom was sufficient to determine the policy’s exclusion for constant and repeated was the actual cause of the Insured’s claim, and not the alleged failed drain line. The jury’s verdict found the exclusion had been properly enforced and there was no breach of contract. The verdict did not reach the question of any post-loss violations, avoiding any appellate issues related to those portions of the trial. After an hour of deliberation, the jury fully agreed and entered a full defense verdict. Read More.
Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Trelles & Bichler, LLC (Yvette M. Trelles)
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:
Six-day jury trial (St. Lucie County); Plaintiff requested approx. $500,000 in damages -the Jury returned a complete Defense Verdict
 
On May 15, 2023, Partners Scott Kirschbaum, Esq., and Elizabeth Jimenez, Esq., obtained a complete defense verdict after a six-day jury trial in a professional liability matter styled Plaintiff v. Shawn Hearing d/b/a Therapeutic Touch Healing Center and Shawn Hearing, individually. The lawsuit arose out of a claim by the Plaintiff, a then 24 year old woman who was studying to be a massage therapist herself, wherein she claimed that Defendant, a licensed massage therapist in Ft. Pierce, performed a massage on her and injured her neck and shoulder by jamming his knee into her neck and shoulder. The Defendant massage therapist denied having performed a massage on the Plaintiff and insisted that he performed the massage on another willing patient as demonstration for the Plaintiff to learn massage techniques per her request to learn.   
 
As an aside, the Defendant and the Plaintiff had known each other for years and in fact, the Plaintiff resided in the Defendant’s home with her sister after Plaintiff’s mother died. The jury was permitted to know those limited facts about the prior relationship.  
 
The Defendant massage therapist admitted that even if he had performed a massage on the Plaintiff, he would never have used his knee on the patient’s body. His standard of care massage therapist expert, Nancy Porambo, LMT, also testified that the use of a knee during a massage would be below the standard of care and it did not make sense that the Plaintiff would be so injured during such a massage but not seek immediate medical attention. Notwithstanding, after refusing conservative treatment from one doctor, the Plaintiff then came under the care of orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Thomas Roush. Dr. Roush, after believing the interpretations of an MRI finding disc herniations and bulges at the C3-4, C4-5, C5-6, C6-7, put the Plaintiff through several procedure, most of which had been unsuccessful by his own admission. They included epidural injections, complete disc replacements, and rhizotomy to the tune of nearly $306,000.00 in medical costs. The jury was not pleased with the charges from Dr. Roush who also had a blended medical bill containing his medical charges for the Plaintiff as well as his “legal” charges as a retained expert in the case. Dr. Roush had also provided a life care plan for the Plaintiff that exceeded $400,000.00 of future care. He ultimately opined that the Plaintiff had recovered completely and had to retreat from many of his opinions about future medical needs and reverse himself in front of the jury.  
 
The defense’s medical experts, Dr. Michael Zeide (orthopedic surgery) and Dr. Gordon Sze (diagnostic radiologist) both opined that the imaging showed no evidence of herniation anywhere on the Plaintiff’s cervical spine.  Dr. Sze said that the imagining showed a minor bulge at the C5-6 level, which was not worthy of surgery. Dr. Zeide also opined that the surgeries and procedures were medically unnecessary and that the Plaintiff would have benefited from conservative treatment such as physical therapy, which had never been ordered by Dr. Roush. Dr. Zeide also opined that the Plaintiff suffered from a pre-existing and undiagnosed scoliosis. There was no evidence of mediated facet pain syndrome and this was proven by Dr. Zeide by the medical evidence and the Plaintiff’s presentation of symptoms.  
 
Over the course of six days, the jury listened to 12 witnesses including several before and after witnesses who were mainly family and friends of the Plaintiff to testify about how she was changed by the alleged incident. This also included the testimony of the four expert witnesses as stated above. The defense imported the theme of no good deed goes unpunished in voir dire, opening statement and closing argument.   
 
The Plaintiff asked the jury for an award of damages of approximately $500,000.00 and left the element of future pain and suffering up to the jurors’ common sense and own devices. While the case presented a tricky “he said, she said” scenario, after deliberating for about seventy-five minutes, the jury apparently believed the testimony of the Defendant massage therapist over that of the Plaintiff and rendered a complete defense verdict in his favor.  Read More.
Case:
Ramon Fernandez v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Mena Law Firm
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:

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.

Case:
Rene Su v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Moises Gross
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:

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.

Case:
Virginia Baist v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Marin, Eljiak, Lopez, and Martinez, P.L.
Result:
Summary Judgment
Summary:

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.

Case:
Sue Demmings v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Marin, Eljiak, Lopez, and Martinez, P.L.
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:

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.

Case:
Emergency Mold & Water Remediation, LLC a/a/o Betsy Fernandez & Alejandro Marquez v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Mario Serralta & Associates
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:

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.

Case:
Miriam Muniz v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Your Insurance Attorney
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:

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.

Case:
South Florida Restoration Service a/a/o Kendale Woods North Condominium Association v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Hernandez Legal Group
Result:
Dismissal
Summary:

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.

Case:
Projekt Property Restoration, Inc., a/a/o Yessenia & Andres Arias v. Defendant Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Carollo Law, P.A. (Caroline M. Carollo)
Result:
Final Summary Judgment
Summary:

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.

Case:
Timothy and Dorothy Maxwell v. Centauri Specialty Insurance Company
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Weil, Snyder & Ravindran, P.A. (Marguerite Snyder, Esq.); Nation Law Firm (Mark Nation, Esq.)
Result:
Summary Judgment Upheld
Summary:

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.

Case:
John and Suzanne Akucewicz v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Summary Judgment
Summary:
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained summary judgment in the matter styled John and Suzanne Akucewicz v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The Plaintiff filed suit claiming damage to their property from a sudden and accidental discharge of water from within a plumbing system. Mr. Perez argued that there was no evidence of any damage to the property resulting from the reported plumbing discharge, and to the extent there could have been any damage, our client was entitled to a presumption of prejudice which the Plaintiff failed to rebut. The Court agreed, finding a lack of evidence to support Plaintiffs’ claim, and a presumption of prejudice that Plaintiffs failed to overcome. Read more
Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Menendez Trial Attorneys (Jose M. Menendez); Ralph O. Anderson, P.A. (Ralph Anderson)
Result:
Net Verdict of $590,751
Summary:

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.  

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Final Summary Judgment
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Final Summary Judgment
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Summary Judgment
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Final Summary Judgment
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict: First-Party Property Slab Leak
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Final Summary Judgment
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Result:
Dismissal with Predjudice
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary:
A Motion for Summary Judgment was granted  in the case of Gonzalez v. Avis Rent A Car.  Judge Arzola granted our Motion for Summary Judgment today on a claim of negligence against Avis Rent A Car System under Florida’s Unattended Motor Vehicle Statute. Plaintiff was injured when an Avis rental vehicle, driven by an individual who gained access to the vehicle, struck Plaintiff’s car and then struck the Plaintiff. Read More
Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice for Fraud on the Court
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Favorable Verdict
Summary:

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 

Case:
Marilyn Samuels, Appellant, v. Defendant Retail Store, Appellee
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Summary Judgment Affirmed
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Dismissal With Prejudice
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Dismissal
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Favorable Verdict
Summary:

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

Case:
Kazandra Bern v. Dafne Acevedo and Marcelle Camejo
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Favorable Verdict
Summary:
Dan Santaniello received a favorable verdict in the motor vehicle accident matter styled Kazandra Bern v. Dafne Acevedo and Marcelle Camejo on February 18, 2016. The matter went back to trial four times. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the jury for $4.6 million. Plaintiff underwent a total of 5 surgeries, including a tibiocalcaneal fusion. At the time of trial, Ms. Bern’s past medical expenses totaled $966,759.  Plaintiff called rehabilitation specialist (life care planner), Larry Foreman, C.R.A. who testified that Plaintiff will need approximately $489,000 in future medical care over the remainder of her lifetime consisting of office visits, medications, injections and physical therapy. Prior to the accident, Ms. Bern worked as a medical transcriptionist earning $15.00 per hour. Her past and future loss of earning claim totaled $288,684.00. The jury found Plaintiff comparative negligence 11.67%, Fabre Defendant 50% and Defendant 38.33%. After set–offs, the net effective verdict was $447,984, well below pre-trial offers. Read More
Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Result:
Final Summary Judgment
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Motion for Final Summary Judgment
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Result:
Motion for Dismissal
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Result:
Motion for Final Summary Judgment
Summary:

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

Case:
Robinson v. Lee Park Condominium Assoc.
Practice Area:
Result:
Final Summary Judgment
Summary:
SUMMARY. Read More
Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:

Bus Doors Shut on Plaintiff (Miami-Dade County, Defense Verdict, June 17, 2011). Read More

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Settled
Summary:

Shot to Death by Unknown Assailant, Miami-Dade County, Howard Holden, Junior Partner and Daniel Santaniello, Managing Partner, Settled, April 29, 2011. Read More

Case:
Practice Area:
Result:
Settled
Summary:

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

Case:
Practice Area:
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:
Betty Kipp and Gordon Kipp v. Laboratory Corporation of America, Slip and Fall Incident, Volusia County ($250K sought), Paul Jones and Dina O’Piedra, Defense Verdict 9/16/2010. Read More
Case:
Lynen, et al. v. Sandhu
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:
(USDC-SDFL, 2010). Read More
Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:
On October 26, 2004, Defendant Andrew allegedly failed to yield the right-of-way at the intersection of Central Industrial Drive and Prospect Avenue in Riviera Beach. Plaintiff was stopped at a stop sign and proceeded through the intersection when Andrew swerved into the opposite lane of travel, striking Plaintiff. Defendants denied liability, maintaining that Andrew had no stop sign and thus had no obligation to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiff.  Read More