Trial Verdicts and Results
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Keyondra Parrish secured a dismissal with prejudice in the Lee County matter styled Gerald Joseph v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for his claim for damage to his property resulting from a kitchen plumbing leak. Defendant asserted its position that the claimed damage resulted from constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water and was therefore excluded from coverage. Just before his deposition, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Precise Home Inspection Services LLC a/a/o Fernando & Juana Suarez-Solis v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for its claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, as Plaintiff’s supplemental claim stemmed from a purported assignment executed more than three years after Hurricane Irma, and was thus barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Florida Statute §627.70132. On the eve of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Pedro Monteagudo v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for his claim for damage to his property resulting from Hurricane Ian. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that the damage to the roof was caused by wear and tear, and that there was no evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rainwater to enter the property. Following the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert, during which Mr. Perez secured favorable testimony in support of Defendant’s position, and in advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled 24/7 Restoration Group Corp a/a/o Pedro Monteagudo v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for its claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, challenging the validity of the purported assignment, contending that it failed to comply with Florida Statute §627.7152, was therefore invalid and unenforceable, and thus rendered Plaintiff without standing to maintain the lawsuit. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Jose Ferrufino et al v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for their claim for damage resulting from an AC leak. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, based on the policy’s exclusions for existing damage and inadequate maintenance. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Associate Summer Sipes secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled You Restorations LLC a/a/o Rodolfo Cruz v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by not paying the full amount of its invoices relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant maintained its position that the services rendered by Plaintiff were subject to the statutory limit set forth in §627.7152, and that it had fulfilled its obligations by exhausting that limit. Defendant also moved to strike Plaintiff’s claim for attorneys’ fees, contending that Plaintiff was no longer statutorily entitled to the recovery of its attorney’s pursuant to §627.428, §626.9373, or §627.7152. Defendant’s motion was granted, Plaintiff subsequently dismissed the case with prejudice.
On July 16, 2024, Jacksonville Partner, Deana N. Dunham obtained an order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a trip and fall case involving a pallet in Plaintiff v. Defendant Retail Store Pallot Fall. The plaintiff filed suit against defendant alleging that Defendant Retail Store failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn her of a hazardous condition.
Plaintiff tripped and fell on a pallet outside of Defendant Retail Store. Plaintiff was a truck driver whose truck had broken down in the parking lot, where she remained for a majority of the day. She had gone into the store once during the day and went back out to her truck. While she remained at the store, she observed a row of merchandise stacked on pallets in the front of the store, with bags of soil stacked about waist or rib height. The row of stacked merchandise was adjacent to a fence such that there was a narrow walkway between the row of stacked merchandise and the fence to the garden department. Plaintiff testified that she observed other customers walking through the narrow pathway, and decided to do the same when her foot caught on the edge of the pallet and she fell to the ground. After the incident, she observed that the pallet was missing a board on the top.
The court noted that the First DCA case, Brookie v. Winn Dixie is instructive in this matter. The Brookie case involved a customer who tripped on a pallet in a retail store. The court found that the pallet was open and obvious, and that some conditions are so open and obvious that a landowner can reasonably assume that invitees will perceive them upon ordinary use of their senses, and are not hazardous as a matter of law. The court held that the undisputed evidence showed that the pallet, as described by Plaintiff was open and obvious, and the missing board did not make it less so. There was no evidence to indicate that the pallet was obscured, hidden or camouflaged.
On July 17, 2023, Deana N. Dunham, Jacksonville Partner and Associate Jack Garwood obtained a final summary judgment in a negligent security matter entitled Plaintiff a minor, by and through parent, and Natural Guardian v. Defendant Retail Store. The minor Plaintiff C.S. suffered injuries at the hands of a third party minor A.S.R., who allegedly stole a BB gun from Defendant Retail Store’s premises and shot C.S. off the premises, inside A.S.R.’s residence while C.S. was visiting A.S.R., his friend.
Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that there was no legal duty owed to C.S., the subject incident was not proximately caused by Defendant, Plaintiff’s theory of liability improperly relied on inference stacking, and public policy concerns. The trial court agreed, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, and Plaintiff filed an appeal. The Appellate Court entered an order affirming the trial court’s ruling on November 26, 2024.
Martindale-Hubbell and martindale.com are registered trademarks, Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings is a trademark and Lawyers.com is a service mark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. AV, BV and CV are registered certification marks and AV Preeminent and BV Distinguished are certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. Copyright 2009 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
by tdburns, llc. - website designer, ft. lauderdale, fl