Trial Verdicts and Results
On January 3, 2025, Tampa Junior Partner Jessalea Shettle won a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, discharging Progressive’s requirement to indemnify and defend the insured in the underlying tort matter styled Progressive American Insurance Company v. Carr. Progressive’s Insured was involved in a severe car accident resulting in death. Their insured filed a complaint with the Department of Insurance and brought allegations that Progressive negligently mishandled his file, and failed to add $250,000/$500,000 bodily injury coverage to his vehicle when requested. The Estate filed suit against Progressive’s Insured, and Progressive filed a declaratory judgment action to seek confirmation from the Court that, at the time of the accident, the insured had not purchased and did not pay a premium for bodily injury coverage, despite his claims that he requested the change and Progressive breached its duty to its insured by failing to make a requested policy change. We were able to prove that Progressive’s policy accurately reflected what was purchased.
On January 6, 2025, Senior Partner Erin O’Connell obtained a Final Summary Judgment in a General Liability matter styled Le Luxe Beauty Bar d/b/a Bellezza Beauty Bar v. Enlighten Electric. The case involves claims of negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent retention against our insured, Enlighten Electric. Plaintiff, a nail salon, claimed that an employee of the Defendant burglarized the salon resulting in damages, including loss of earning capacity and income. The salon was new and not yet opened, and was under construction by various contractors, including Defendant, with intent to open shortly before the burglary occurred. The salon shared a d/b/a with an existing salon at a different location, owned by the sister of the owner of the new salon. Plaintiff brought suit under the legal entity and d/b/a of the existing salon, and not the new salon, as it was not yet open and there was a question of ownership and damages.
Defendant argued that Plaintiff, a d/b/a salon, filed suit under the incorrect legal entity name. The case involved complications including ownership of various entities, transfer of ownership, and which entity incurred damages. Plaintiff argued that the two salons were tied together inextricably, and that the existing salon was the proper Plaintiff as the new salon was unable to open due to the burglary.
The Court heard oral argument in July of 2024 and the Court spent six months weighing the arguments and all evidence provided by the parties. The Court agreed that the party that brought the suit was the incorrect party. The Court also found that the Defendant is entitled to its fees and costs for the life of litigation. Of note, the date of loss was October 20, 2019, and the statute of limitations has now run, so the correct Plaintiff cannot now come forward with suit of their own.
On December 3, 2024, Fort Myers office obtained a Final Dismissal in a matter styled Plaintiff v. Pierre Luis and Uber Technologies. The Plaintiff was drunk driver who crashed into the Defendant’s vehicle on New Years Eve of 2019. The defendant had two passengers in the backseat of his vehicle who were utilizing a ride share program. One of the passengers in the backseat of Defendant’s vehicle tragically lost his life as he was crushed to death when the Plaintiff’s pickup truck came to a rest on top of the Defendant’s Toyota Camry. The named individual Defendant, as well as the surviving female passenger were also injured as a result of the accident as well. Deposition evidence, as well as blood tests taken in the ER right after the accident, revealed evidence of the outrageous behavior the Plaintiff had been engaged in prior to the accident including testimony that the Plaintiff and his front seat passenger had been barhopping and using cocaine throughout the day just prior to the accident. The Plaintiff attempted to claim his friend, his front seat passenger, was the driver, however the police were able to determine that the much taller passenger did not comport with the driver’s seat position, in addition to the fact that the truck was owned by the Plaintiff, as well physical evidence that showed the Plaintiff’s forehead cracked the windshield which matched the Plaintiff’s large hematoma. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff’s blood drawn revealed the Plaintiff’s BAC was more than three times the legal limit, and he tested positive for cocaine use, and evidence uncovered by accident reconstruction experts along with eyewitnesses estimated the Plaintiff was traveling nearly double the speed limit in the seconds leading up to the fata crash. Astoundingly, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant failed to yield the right-of-way and filed suit against the Defendant and the rideshare program. The Plaintiff is currently awaiting trial on vehicular homicide charges. The Plaintiff filed suit just four days prior to the statute of limitations expiring. The Plaintiff failed to serve the Defendants within 120 days, failed to adhere to the Court’s Order to show good cause for not serving the Defendants, The Court noted that the Plaintiff attempted to circumvent the Court’s two prior rulings and orders by simply re-filing in a closed case three months later when the case had been judicially closed. However, justice ultimately prevailed when the case was ordered dismissed on December 3, 2024, when a hearing was held to hear the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Quash. The Court ruled that the case was dismissed without prejudice, but acknowledged that the statute of limitations had run, precluding the Plaintiff from re-filing, and thus the Order to Dismiss would have the effect of being with prejudice.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Junior Partner Cristina Sevilla secured final summary judgment in the matter styled Father & Son Carpet Cleaning & Restoration LLC a/a/o Danay Cordova v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by not paying the full amount of its invoices relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, maintaining the position that the services rendered by Plaintiff were subject to the policy’s sublimit applying to reasonable emergency measures, and that Defendant had fulfilled its obligations by exhausting that limit with its payment to Plaintiff. Defendant’s motion was granted, and Plaintiff reimbursed Defendant for the costs incurred defending this lawsuit.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Keyondra Parrish secured a dismissal with prejudice in the Lee County matter styled Gerald Joseph v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for his claim for damage to his property resulting from a kitchen plumbing leak. Defendant asserted its position that the claimed damage resulted from constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water and was therefore excluded from coverage. Just before his deposition, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Precise Home Inspection Services LLC a/a/o Fernando & Juana Suarez-Solis v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for its claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, as Plaintiff’s supplemental claim stemmed from a purported assignment executed more than three years after Hurricane Irma, and was thus barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Florida Statute §627.70132. On the eve of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Pedro Monteagudo v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for his claim for damage to his property resulting from Hurricane Ian. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that the damage to the roof was caused by wear and tear, and that there was no evidence of a peril created opening in the roof that allowed rainwater to enter the property. Following the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert, during which Mr. Perez secured favorable testimony in support of Defendant’s position, and in advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled 24/7 Restoration Group Corp a/a/o Pedro Monteagudo v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for its claim for payment relating to services rendered at the insured property pursuant to an assignment of benefits. Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, challenging the validity of the purported assignment, contending that it failed to comply with Florida Statute §627.7152, was therefore invalid and unenforceable, and thus rendered Plaintiff without standing to maintain the lawsuit. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
Miami Senior Partner Anthony Perez and Senior Associate Alec Teijelo secured a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Jose Ferrufino et al v. Defendant Insurance Company. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for their claim for damage resulting from an AC leak. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, based on the policy’s exclusions for existing damage and inadequate maintenance. In advance of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice.
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