Perez, Anthony; Teijelo, Alec A.

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Ana Busta 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 in the form of cracked flooring tiles. 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 a dropped object and therefore excluded from coverage under the policy. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.    Read More

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez obtained a dismissal in the matter styled Great 22 Restoration, LLC a/a/o Carlos A. Lopez Amaya v. Defendant Insurance Account. 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 and the case was dismissed with prejudice.  Read More

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez secured a dismissal with prejudice and sanctions in the matter styled Water Dryout, LLC a/a/o Jackson Mauricette v. Defendant Insurance Account. 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, and its Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, 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. Both of Defendant’s Motions were granted, the case was dismissed with prejudice, and Plaintiff reimbursed Defendant for the attorneys’ fees incurred defending Plaintiff’s frivolous claim.  Read More

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez secured final judgment on the pleadings and sanctions in the matter styled US Mold Hunters, Inc. a/a/o Clementina Sanchez 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 Judgment on the Pleadings, and its Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, contending that Plaintiff’s purported assignment was nothing more than a piece of paper without legal force or effect, as it was executed by the Insured/Assignor fifteen days after she had already executed a full and final release of her claim, leaving no benefits left to be assigned. Both of Defendant’s Motions were granted, final judgment was entered in favor of Defendant, and Plaintiff reimbursed Defendant for the attorneys’ fees incurred defending Plaintiff’s frivolous claim.  Read More

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez secured final summary judgment in the matter styled Francisco & Linda Espinosa 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 Irma.  As Plaintiffs reported their claim 2 ½ years after Hurricane Irma, 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 had established that its ability to determine the cause and the extent of the reported damage had been prejudiced due to the passage of time, the changes in the condition to the property, the repairs made, the absence of documentation, and the other storms that occurred between the date of loss and the date the claim was reported. The Court further found that Plaintiffs had failed to rebut this prejudice, and that the Affidavit of David Benjamin Money on which Plaintiffs relied was conclusory and unreliable. Final Summary Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant.  Read More

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez secured a dismissal with prejudice and sanctions in the matter styled Dri-Force Restoration, Inc. a/a/o Ocean Breeze Condo, Inc. 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 condominium pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, and its Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, 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 to Dismiss 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. Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105 was also granted, as Plaintiff should have known that its claim based on an invoice for services that had already been performed did not comply with Florida Statute §627.7152. Plaintiff reimbursed Defendant for the attorneys’ fees incurred defending Plaintiff’s frivolous claim.  Read More

Monge, Zoe E; Bailey, Nora R.

Stuart Associate, Zoe Nelson, Esq., prevailed on a Motion to Strike the Pleadings in a motor vehicle/personal injury matter styled Plaintiff v. Hallauer. Plaintiff alleged that she sustained personal injury in a three-vehicle accident said to have occurred on or about January 21, 2020, resulting in $250,000 in medical bills from a shoulder surgery, cervical fusion, and a potential traumatic brain injury. On November 28, 2022, Defendant propounded initial discovery and, subsequently, updated and expert discovery to the Plaintiff. However, in violation of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280, Plaintiff failed to respond to written discovery, and trial was anticipated to commence on the court’s January 2024 docket. Ms. Nelson made numerous good faith attempts to confer with Plaintiff and filed Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s overdue discovery responses, which were granted. When Plaintiff failed to comply with those rulings, Ms. Nelson filed a Motion to Show Cause for Failure to Comply with the Court’s Order(s). Nevertheless, Plaintiff continued to disregard the Court’s authority and failed to abide by the basic rules and principles of discovery. Accordingly, Ms. Nelson moved to strike the pleadings as a sanction, pursuant to Kozel v. Ostendorf. Judge Waronicki, in applying the Kozel factors, held that Plaintiff’s flagrant disregard for the Court’s authority mandated that the pleadings be stricken and that the case against Defendant be dismissed with prejudice.   Read More

Rodriguez-Sierra, Jorge W.

Commercial Litigation (Land Use)

Menendez-Aponte, Luis; Gargaglione, Lucas

On October 18, 2023, trial team Luis Menendez-Aponte and Lucas Gargaglione, with the assistance of appellate counsel Ed Ferreyra, prevailed on directed verdict in a land use 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. They sought a declaratory judgment from the Court that the easements 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 aggressive adjoining landowner-developer’s attempts to expand the scope of these easements for the purposes of development of several residential and commercial buildings. If the Plaintiff had prevailed, the condominium would have had to surrender a large percentage of their property and it would have likely resulted in the displacement of many of the elderly residents as the proposed development was anticipated to last years.  Read More

Kelly, Derrick M; Dixon, Madeline S. 

CMS Law Group 

Favorable Verdict

Senior Partner Derrick M Kelly, Esq., and Associate Madeline Dixon, Esq., obtained a favorable result in a general liability negligence matter that prevented their client from incurring significant damages, including attorney’s fees.  Plaintiff Susan Rae Bolton, as trustee of the Betty J. Whitlock Trust, filed a property damage lawsuit against DP Development, LLC, alleging that its asphalt paving crew negligently applied hot asphalt near a wooden garage structure during a private parking lot paving project, that caused a fire that completely consumed the attached garage structure used for storage, and caused extensive smoke and soot damage to the main structure, estimated as high as $895,000 to repair.  In addition, the fire resulted in a business tenant vacating the premises, as it was no longer inhabitable for business operation.

The case was contested on both liability and damages, and consisted of 17 depositions, including multiple depositions of experts, a corporate representative for FPL, and numerous fact witnesses.  Plaintiff served a PFS in October 2023, when at that time, only four depositions had been taken.  The disputed issues of liability involved contested evidence regarding whether the fire started inside or outside the garage based on fire patterns, consumption rate of wood and beams, and other information.  Damages was contested based on the proper measure of damages, as well as what metric for the measure of damages to use.  Defendant filed a Motion in Limine requesting that the Court determined that the proper measure of damages for the real property was limited to the diminution in value, as opposed to repair and replacement costs. 

The Court, the Honorable George Paulk, agreed.  The only issue remaining was the proper measure of the diminution in value.  Plaintiff argued that the proper measure of diminution in value was $425,000, after consideration of retroactive valuation of property preceding fire, and post-fire valuation.  Defendant argued that the proper measure of diminution in value was $192,000, as estimated by the Brevard County Property Appraiser’s Office. At trial, Defense counsel got Plaintiff’s diminution in value expert to agree that the valuation of the Brevard County Property Appraiser’s Office was a legitimate metric, even if he disagreed.  In addition, at trial, Defendant filed a Motion for Directed Verdict on Plaintiff’s claim of future loss business rent for failure to produce adequate document Terry evidence to support as payment of rent.

Liability was contested to the very end, with the jury asking questions of witnesses that went to the heart of liability. Plaintiff requested $495,000 from the jury. Defendant strategically conceded certain hard cost and miscellaneous damages, while challenging the diminution in value and claims of lost future rent. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict of $369,000. This led Plaintiff’s lead counsel to request the Court poll the jury to ensure that it was everyone’s verdict.

Perez, Anthony; Sevilla, Cristina A.

Mineo Salcedo Law Firm 

Final Summary Judgment 

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.

First Respond Mitigation Services a/a/o Thomas G. Downes v. Defendant Insurance Company  

Vargas Gonzalez Baldwin Delombard

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled First Respond Mitigation Services a/a/o Thomas G. Downes 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. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 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. Defendant was also awarded entitlement to the recovery of its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred defending this lawsuit. Plaintiff reimbursed Defendant for those fees and costs. Read More.

Perez, Anthony; Sevilla, Cristina A.; Pryce, Brittany A.

Kandell, Kandell & Petrie  

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez, Junior Partner Cristina Sevilla, and Associate Brittany Pryce secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Mold Details Corporation a/a/o Michael Sapoznik v Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed its initial 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, contending that Plaintiff’s notice of intent to initiate litigation was premature and failed to comply with Florida Statute §627.7152. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case without prejudice. Two years later, after attempting to correct its defective notice of intent, Plaintiff filed this second lawsuit. Pursuant to §627.7152(10), Defendant sought to collect the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred defending the first lawsuit dismissed by Plaintiff. In lieu of reimbursing Defendant for those fees and costs, Plaintiff dismissed the matter with prejudice. Read More

Insurance Litigation Group

Dismissal with Prejudice

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

Perez, Anthony; Pryce, Brittany A.

Gold Litigation

Dismissal with Prejudice

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

Perez, Anthony; Pryce, Brittany A. 

Roger A. Alvarez, P.A.

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and associate Brittany Pryce secured a dismissal with prejudice in the Lee County matter styled Tarp & Restoration Geeks Corp. a/a/o Libia Jamaica 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, the case was dismissed with prejudice. Read More

Perez, Anthony; Parrish, Keyondra N.

Duboff Law Firm

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Associate Keyondra Parrish secured a dismissal in the Broward County matter styled Vincent Baumert 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 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 the lack of any evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rainwater to enter the property. With a trial date approaching, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More 

Payless Response Team d/b/a Waterresto USA a/a/o Yasmina Martinez v. Defendant Insurance Company 

Perez, Anthony; Teijelo, Alec A.

Insurance Litigation Group

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Payless Response Team d/b/a Waterresto USA a/a/o Yasmina Martinez 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. Following the deposition of Plaintiff’s engineer, Alfredo Brizuela, where Mr. Perez secured testimony undermining his expert opinions, Defendant filed its Motion to Strike Alfredo Brizuela. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, and with an approaching trial date, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More

Perez, Anthony; Teijelo, Alec A.

Mario Serralta & Associates

Dismissal with Prejudice

Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Virginia Freitas Pinto 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 Tropical Storm Alex. Following the deposition of the insured, during which Mr. Teijelo secured favorable testimony in support of Defendant’s position that the damage pre-existed the policy period, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice. Read More