Verdicts by Location: Orlando
On April 2, 2025, Orlando Senior Partner Matthew Wendler obtained summary judgment in a case involving the alleged negligence of our client, a construction contractor that employed two individuals alleged to have battered the plaintiff while they were out of town for work. Specifically, the incident occurred in a hotel parking lot on a Sunday night, over 24 hours after the employees had stopped working at the construction site, which was nearby. As to our client, Plaintiff sought to recover for the traumatic brain injury he allegedly sustained during the incident under theories of vicarious liability (respondeat superior) (namely, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress), negligent training, and negligent supervision. Plaintiff’s wife sought to recover for her alleged loss of consortium.
As to the vicarious-liability claims, the Court agreed with Mr. Wendler’s contention that Plaintiff had no evidence of two of the three elements needed to recover, that is, (1) evidence that the conduct was of the kind the employees were hired to perform and (2) evidence that the conduct occurred substantially within the time and space limits authorized or required by the work to be performed. As to the negligent-supervision claim, Plaintiff conceded during the hearing that summary judgment should be entered in our client’s favor. As to the negligent-training claim, the Court agreed with our contention that the duty to train extends only to those tasks as to which an employer would reasonably expect its employees to require instructions; and that, relative to the employees’ construction job, how to conduct oneself in a hotel parking lot while he or she is off duty falls outside the scope of any reasonable expectation.
On July 25, 2025, Orlando Managing Partner Anthony Merendino and Senior Appellate Partner Daniel Weinger obtained an order granting Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment in a premises liability case styled Plaintiff v. Defendant Retail Store FL. The Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging that Defendant was liable for Plaintiff’s slip-and-fall inside of Defendant retail store while shopping, as well as for negligent maintenance of the subject store.
Plaintiff alleged that while she was shopping inside of the subject Retail store, she slipped-and-fell in an aisle on what she described as a sand-like substance on the Floor. Con-sequently, Plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries primarily to her low back. We were able to successfully argue that based upon the undisputed material facts (obtained mostly from Plaintiff’s deposition), the Defendant was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law as there was no record evidence that the Defendant had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the floor in the area where Plaintiff allegedly slipped-and-fell. Mr. Merendino also pointed out that Plaintiff’s negligent maintenance claim was abolished pursuant to Florida Statute 68.0755. Plaintiff’s claimed past medical bills were approximately $40,000, which consisted of among other treatment, epidural steroid injections and plasma injections. Plaintiff was also recommended to undergo a low back surgery. Plaintiff rejected a settlement offer in 2024. The summary judgment prevented a trial scheduled to begin in December, 2025.
Landlord Liability – Animal Liability – Property Management – $1M Demand - Past Medicals Exceeded $1.5M - Summary Judgment Granted
Food delivery driver suffered severe fractures to both legs after leaping from a balcony of an apartment building. The driver asserted that he made a food delivery to a tenant and was chased by a “vicious” pitbull dog owned by the tenant. Plaintiff argued that all pitbulls are inherently vicious and aggressive and that the landlord was negligent in allowing the tenant to own such an animal, even though the dog involved (“Stitch”) had no history of aggressive behavior, and was a certified Emotional Support Animal. Plaintiff underwent multiple surgeries on both legs to recover from the fall. Plaintiff sought recovery for past and future medical expenses and pain and suffering. Past medical expenses alone exceeded $1.5 million.
We defended the landlord and property manager, arguing that pitbulls are not inherently dangerous and that, under the ADA, it is reasonable to accommodate Emotional Support Animals with no history of aggressive behavior. Plaintiff’s decision to leap from the 2nd story onto the asphalt parking lot below was also a superseding, intervening cause of his injury. After 2 ½ years of litigation, where Plaintiff consistently refused to come below their pre-suit demand of $1 million, Premises Liability Partner Katherine E. McKinley and Appellate Director Daniel Weinger obtained final summary judgment in favor of the landlord and property manager.Defense Verdict- Eight-Day Trial - Rear End Collision - Plaintiff Requested $7,000,000
On April 2, 2025, after an eight-day trial arising out of a disputed-liability rear-end collision, the jury returned a full defense verdict—deliberating for only 13 minutes before siding with our 24-year-old client. Plaintiff characterized the accident as a simple rear-end accident, but we argued that the plaintiff cut into our client’s lane and suddenly and unexpectedly slammed on their brakes. The jury agreed. The plaintiff rejected the policy tender and asked the jury for $7 million in closing argument. The damages presentation included $1,100,000 in past medical expenses. Plaintiff underwent four surgeries including a cervical fusion, lumbar discectomy, bilateral rotator cuff repair, and right wrist repair. Plaintiff also presented a $340,000 life care plan. Mid-trial, we successfully excluded the plaintiff’s proposed rebuttal expert testimony on causation, further weakening their case. Our proposal for settlement in the amount of the policy limits entitled us to seek fees and costs, making the victory even more significant.
On August 28, 2025, after a four-day trial, the jury returned a defense win in an intersectional collision case involving a national pizza delivery company. Despite the late file transfer just one week before trial, our parachute trial team stepped in and delivered outstanding results. Just prior to trial, we succeeded on a motion to exclude a cervical fusion surgical recommendation.
During trial, plaintiff called three experts—a radiologist we are seeing more frequently, Dr. Darren Buono, along with a neurosurgeon and a primary care physician—to support their damages case. The plaintiff demanded $1.4 million in closing argument, presenting claims of four disc herniations, a cervical epidural steroid injection, and ongoing pain management to leverage the perceived “deep pocket” defendant. Despite having a deceased defendant, no discovery responses, and no deposition testimony to rebut the Plaintiff’s claims, the defense team beat directed verdict on negligence and causation during trial. Shortly after closing arguments, the jury awarded just $78,000, an amount that fell below the defense’s proposal for settlement, resulting in a net zero judgment against the defendant.
Defense Verdict - Admitted Liability - Volusia County- Plaintiff Requested $1,776,258
On October 31, 2025, Orlando Senior Partner Juan Ruiz and Senior Associate Stephanie Davis obtained a complete defense verdict on an admitted liability rear-end collision case. This is parachute trial number 16 for Juan Ruiz this year, our Excess Monitoring and Parachute Trial Co-Chair. No priors, multiple disc herniations in the cervical and lumbar spine, an alleged traumatic brain injury, a L5-S1 discectomy, and overbilling of $166,000 with a $486,000 Life Care Plan. Plaintiff asked for $1,776,258, but the jury said $0 after 44 minutes. Senior Associate Stephanie Davis second-chaired this win and handled our radiology expert. Even with tort reform, the LOP docs continue to overbill these cases. We will continue to aggressively defend against these abuses.
Construction Partner David Harrigan obtained favorable Final Judgment in a CD matter styled Lincolnshire Maximo, LLC v. Marina Walk, LLC. The Plaintiff is the owner of a marina in south St. Petersburg and the submerged lots of a canal that leads from the marina to Boca Ciega Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The Defendant is the owner of a residential apartment building directly east of the marina and separated only by a city street and right of way. The claims by the Plaintiff involved the existence of an underground 24-inch storm drainage pipe, approximately 57 feet in length, that runs due west beneath the Plaintiff’s parking lot originating from Defendant’s property and running beneath the City’s right of way for 37th Street South, and terminating at an outfall incorporated into the seawall for the marina. The pipe drains a portion of the storm water flowing from the Defendant’s property. No recorded easement exists for that portion of the pipe that crosses beneath the Plaintiff’s property.
The Plaintiff brought claims for negligence, trespass, and private nuisance associated with use of and discharges through the drain pipe, which the Court dismissed at the conclusion of trial in response to the Defendant’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal of those claims. On the remaining claims, the Plaintiff sought declaratory relief to confirm their property rights regarding the presence of the pipe, enjoining the Defendant for further use of the Pipe for drainage, and demanding damages in the form of equitable disgorgement of profits from the Defendant’s rental property.
Recounting the significant history of the drainage pipe since the late 1950s, the Court recognized that stormwater drainage continued through the drainpipe without objection until 2018, when the Defendant began redevelopment/conversion of its property from a hotel to an apartment building. At that time, Plaintiff voiced its objection to the continued use of the drainpipe and sought through various means to obstruct and deny the Defendant’s property any further ability to drain a portion of its stormwater runoff through the pipe.
The Court, in considering the totality of the evidence and testimony at trial, determined that the Defendant established through clear and convincing evidence all elements of a prescriptive easement for the drainpipe, thus denying the Plaintiff all recovery sought on its claims associated with the Defendant’s use of the pipe. As to all counts of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint not previously dismissed pursuant to the Defendant’s Motion for Involuntarily Dismissal, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendant.
Shooting Wrongful Death 16-Year-old - Brevard County - Summary Judgment Granted.
Orlando Senior Partner Laurette Balinsky, Esq., obtained a final summary judgment in a negligent security case involving the shooting death of a 16 year old, in the matter styled Shonte Bunch, as PR of the Estate of Martorell Williams v. Pilot Travel Centers LLC, SSA Delaware and Northlake Foods, d/b/a Waffle House in Brevard County, Florida. The PR alleged that Pilot/ SSA breached their non-delegable duty to decedent to provide a reasonably safe premise by allowing crowds to congregate on their premises, thereby creating a foreseeable zone of risk to invitees. The Complaint alleged that Defendants allowed hundreds of people to congregate on the premises and that multiple crimes purportedly occurred in the three years before the incident. The plaintiff was seeking $5M on the case.
Defendants moved for summary judgment shortly after the May 2021 amendment to Rule 1.510, Fla.R.Civ.P. Defendants’ Motion was based on two distinct grounds: (1) that Defendants owed no duty to the decedent; and (2) decedent’s claim was barred by Fla. Stat. §768.075(4) since he was involved in a felony at the time of the shooting.
Defendants’ primary argument as to lack of duty was predicated on the fact that the shooter fired the deadly shot from the premises of our client, and that there was no record evidence as to the exact location of the decedent to our property line when he was shot. Defendants argued that decedent was, at best, within an easement granted to the adjoining property owner, and not within a location controlled by Defendants. As such, it was Defendants’ position that there is no duty under Florida law to protect an invitee from a crime committed by a third party outside of its premises. To hold otherwise, would extend Florida law and turn premises liability on its head.
Plaintiff vigorously opposed Defendants’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment and filed an Affidavit by security expert, Michael Zoovas. Within their Reply brief, Defendants moved to strike the Affidavit, arguing that it was essentially a sham, because the expert ignored evidence and completely failed to acknowledge the location of the shooter. Defendants further argued that the expert’s opinion that the decedent was shot on Pilot’s premises should be stricken because the opinion was not supported by any evidence and fell outside the expert’s background, education, training, and expertise. Moreover, the location of the decedent was not germane to the duty argument, since it was clear that the tort was committed (i.e., the gun was fired) from a location outside of premises owned or controlled by Defendants. In other words, the expert’s Affidavit was simply a distraction.
The Court conducted two lengthy hearings. Plaintiff submitted a total of four briefs; one was submitted the day after the conclusion of the second hearing. After consideration of Plaintiff’s untimely Supplemental Memorandum of Law, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment. In its opinion, the Court stated that it was “loathe to find a ‘crowd’ as inherently dangerous a hazard as buried electric cables or to extend a duty to property owners for crimes that occur off their premises where that property owner has not caused the conditions for the injury.” The Court further found that the existence of an easement providing ingress and egress does not extend liability to Defendants, and that Defendants did not have a duty to decedent for criminal acts initiated on an adjoining property. This is a significant win for the defense bar, and protects property owners from an extension of liability for acts that occur outside of an owner’s premises, and from acts which are outside of their control.
Anthony Merendino, Esq., obtained a favorable result in a Motor Vehicle Accident matter styled Leon Hood & Felicia Brown v. Elizabeth Vilece and Frank Vilece when the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal and thereby upheld its prior Order dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice. The Court also granted the Defendants’ Motion for Costs for defending the action.
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant rear-ended the Plaintiffs’ motor vehicle. The Court issued a Case Management Order requiring the Plaintiffs to submit an Agreed Case Management Plan by a date certain outlining pretrial deadlines. The Plaintiffs failed to timely file an Agreed Case Management Plan by the deadline imposed by the Court’s Case Management Order. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring the Plaintiffs to explain why the Case Management Plan was not timely filed. Thereafter, counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed upon a Case Management Plan, but the Plaintiffs neglected to file the Case Management Plan. The Court subsequently entered an Order of Dismissal of the case without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal alleging excusable neglect, and filed an Affidavit of a paralegal supporting the excusable neglect (which attempted to explain why the agreed Case Management Plan had not been filed). At a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal, Mr. Merendino pointed out deficiencies in the Affidavit filed by the Plaintiffs and convinced the Court that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated the requisite excusable neglect. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal and thereby upheld its prior Order dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice. The Court also granted the Defendants’ Motion for Costs for defending the action.
Managing Partners Anthony Petrillo, Esq., and Anthony Merendino, Esq., obtained a favorable result in a personal injury matter styled Connie Ader v. Defendant Retail Store in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Florida. Plaintiff asked the jury for $1.1 million dollars at trial. The jury returned a verdict for $20,000 for the Plaintiff however Defendant had a proposal for settlement and is moving for attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiff alleged that while she was a business invitee of Defendant Retail Store, she sustained a permanent ulnar nerve injury in her left upper extremity as a result of cutting her left forearm on a display basket while walking past it at a Defendant Retail store. According to the Plaintiff, her left forearm was impaled by an allegedly defective display basket. Plaintiff’s position was that the allegedly defective wire basket either impacted her ulnar nerve or cut through the sensory branches of the ulnar nerve. Plaintiff claimed that as a result of the incident, she experienced pain, numbness, tingling, weakness, and burning in her left upper extremity, specifically, the 4th and 5th digits of her left hand, which caused her an inability to wear her wedding ring or grip/hold things including, among other things, a cell phone, golf club, bicycle handle, and her husband’s hand. Plaintiff sought damages for past and future pain & suffering, mental anguish, disability, disfigurement, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.
Prior to trial, Defendant Retail Store admitted liability. At trial, an adverse inference instruction was given to the jury regarding Defendant Retail Store's loss of certain evidence (display basket) which allowed the jury to infer that the missing evidence was unfavorable to Defendant Retail Store. Plaintiff asked the jury for $1.1 million dollars at trial using a per diem argument that Plaintiff should be awarded $8.00 per hour for the 5 years since the incident and the estimated 20 years she is projected to live under the Mortality Table guidelines (excluding 8 hours per day for sleeping).
Prior to trial, Defendant Retail Store served a Proposal for Settlement (“PFS”) on the Plaintiff, and depending on the amount of Plaintiff’s recoverable costs incurred prior to the date of the PFS, Defendant Retail Store will likely be entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and costs from the Plaintiff from the date the PFS was served. Read more
Laurette Balinsky, Esq., obtained a favorable result when the court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for fraud on the court. In the matter styled Freeman v. Adkins and Citrus Auto, Plaintiff was claiming injuries and damages stemming from an automobile accident. Plaintiff alleged severe injuries. Through discovery, the defense was able uncover inconsistencies and false statements made by the Plaintiff under oath. The defense obtained records from Plaintiff’s employer which completely contradicted much of Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her wage claim and alleged limitations. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss based on the clear and unequivocal false statements made under oath. Read more
On May 11, 2018, Jacksonville Managing Partner Todd Springer, Esq., and Lynette Whitehurst, Esq., received a defense verdict in the premises liability matter styled Renan Pierre v. Tiger Lake Subdivision Property Owners Association. Plaintiff presented a combined loss of past and future earning capacity of over $450,000 and future life care needs of over $500,000. Plaintiff Pierre was dumping a load of shell rock when the dump truck he was operating overturned on the unpaved roadway owned by Tiger Lake. Plaintiff alleged that the road was unsafe and was not properly compacted. The jury found no negligence on the part of Tiger Lake. Read more
On June 8, 2017, Orlando Partner Paul Jones, Esq. and Senior Associate Douglas Petro, Esq. obtained a favorable verdict in the slip and fall matter styled Alba v. Defendant Store. Plaintiff slipped and fell on a liquid left behind by the store’s floor scrubbing machine and there were no warning cones in place at the time. Plaintiff incurred $300,000 in medicals for multiple surgeries (knee arthroscopy, cervical fusion, hardware removal from prior lumbar fusion) with another $140,000 needed for future medical expenses including revision surgeries testified to by her treating neurosurgeon. Plaintiff asked the jury for over $800,000 in total. The jury awarded $18,000 representing the cost of initial treatment only and no award for pain and suffering damages. Defendant prevailed on its proposal for settlement and Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial was denied. Read More
Paul Jones and Joshua Parks obtained a favorable settlement during trial in an Auto Negligence case in Osceola County in the matter styled Motola v. De Laire on April 7, 2015. The Plaintiff was rear ended by the Defendant driver and liability was admitted prior to trial. As a result of the subject accident, the Plaintiff claimed injuries to his shoulder, back and legs. Read More
Paul Jones, Partner and Katherine Kmiec, Esq. of the Orlando office of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones obtained a defense verdict in a premises liability case styled Amber Hofer v. Kristen Costantino and State Farm in Orange County, March 21, 2012. The case involved an automobile accident near the University of Central Florida, where Plaintiff claimed that her car spun around two and a half times after being hit. The Plaintiff was 22 years old at the time of the accident and claimed that she permanently injured her neck and lower back in the impact. Read More
Paul Jones, Partner and Douglas Petro, Esq., of the Orlando office of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones obtained a defense verdict in an automobile accident case styled William G. Bruzon v. Antron L. James in Orange County, January 26, 2012. The case involved an automobile accident where the Plaintiff claimed his vehicle was struck on the driver's side while waiting to cross traffic, but the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff turned into his path of travel and caused the accident. Read More
Katherine Kmiec, Esq., and Doreen Lasch, Junior Partner of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones obtained a Dismissal with Prejudice in the case styled Marin v. The Hertz Corporation in Orange County. At the trial level, Plaintiff attempted to amend a premises liability cause of action to incorporate elements of Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) discrimination as elements of the underlying negligence cause of action. In his third amended complaint, Plaintiff alleged that because he was elderly, and had difficulties walking, Hertz discriminated against him under the ADA by failing to modify its policies and procedures to accommodate his disabilities, which resulted in bodily injury, pain and suffering to Plaintiff. Read More
Paul Jones, Partner and Thomas Farrell, Junior Partner of the Orlando office of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones obtained a defense verdict in a premises liability case styled Edward Elliott and Penelope Elliott v. Simon Property Group and Control Building Services, Inc. in Orange County, December 2, 2011. The case involved a slip and fall in a mall common area where the Plaintiff fell and injured his right knee in a puddle of water that was on the floor for approximately 15-20 minutes. Read More
Verdict, October 10, 2011. Read More
Swimming Pool Accident (Paralysis), Orange County, Joseph Scarpa, Junior Partner and Paul Jones, Orlando Partner, Dismissed, April, 2011. Read More
2011, James Waczewski and Leena Joseph. Read More
Slip and Fall—Ladder, Polk County, Paul Jones and Thomas Farrell, $1M Sought, Defense Verdict, 1/21/2011. Read More
products causing a large fire. Read More
Paul S. Jones, Partner obtained a ruling in favor of the Defendant on his Motion for Final Summary Judgment on August 22, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by the Honorable Gregory A. Presnell. The Plaintiff, Deborah Canaday, claimed in her Complaint that the Defendant, her employer, violated the provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. 2611, by first failing to advise the Plaintiff of her Federally-protected rights; then by denying her leave under said Act; and finally of terminating her by reason of excessive absenteeism, which the Plaintiff claimed should have been accommodated by FMLA leaves of absence. Numerous depositions were taken of the Plaintiff’s supervisors; which evidence showed that contrary to the Plaintiff’s allegations, she was advised of the availability of medical leave under the aforementioned Act. Read More
Paul Jones, Partner and Joseph Scarpa, Esq. received a defense verdict on June 30, 2006 for a personal injury claim. On July 28, 2003, the Plaintiff was hit by a car that failed to stop at an intersection. The vehicle then fled the scene. A witness to the accident obtained the license plate number of the fleeing vehicle. The officer responding to the accident traced the fleeing vehicle’s license plate to the Defendant’s residence. The Defendant argued her vehicle was not involved in the accident with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Webster, a pain management specialist, testified at trial that the Plaintiff suffered a permanent injury to his cervical and lumbar spine as a result of the accident. The Defendant’s expert, Dr. Lotman, an orthopedic surgeon, found that the Plaintiff suffered a cervical sprain as a result of the accident and suspected the Plaintiff may have also suffered a compression fracture in his cervical spine at C-6. The Plaintiff incurred $5,915.00 in medical expenses by the time of trial. The Plaintiff’s expert pain management specialist testified at trial that the Plaintiff would need $4,000-$5,000 in future treatment for the rest of his life, to include trigger point injections for the control of pain. The jury found that it was the Defendant's vehicle that caused the accident, but was convinced by the defense that the Plaintiff was not injured in the accident. Read More