Trial Verdicts and Results
(2) A contractor who constructs, maintains, or repairs a highway, road, street, bridge, or other transportation facility for the Department of Transportation is not liable to a claimant for personal injury, property damage, or death arising from the performance of the construction, maintenance, or repair if, at the time of the personal injury, property damage, or death, the contractor was in compliance with contract documents material to the condition that was the proximate cause of the personal injury, property damage, or death.
Plaintiff suffered spinal injuries diagnosed by MRI, and also allegedly suffered PTSD. The Plaintiff’s dog was in the car and was also uninjured. Plaintiff is a 52 year old lawyer for Homeland Security. Defendant has moved for attorney fees and costs based on the Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement in the amount of $2,500. Similarly, Defendant has filed a motion for prevailing party costs under Florida Statute 57.041.
Judge Oftendal held that the preserved store video was dispositive evidence supporting the Defendant’s contention that it was not on actual or constructive notice of the liquid on the floor prior to Plaintiff’s fall. Using a videography expert, the Defendant was able to prove that the source of the spill came from another customer 1 minute and 10 seconds prior to Plaintiff’s fall, thereby negating any constructive notice on Defendant under (1)(a) of the statute. As for (1)(b) of the statute, Plaintiff did not present any genuine issue of material fact showing that spills occurred with regularity, and were therefore foreseeable. Read More
Plaintiff alleged that it was contacted to repair the underground water main on December 21, 2020, after the main was damaged during directional drilling operations in St. Johns County, Florida. The issue for the Jury’s consideration was not fault for the water main strike, but rather which of the co-defendants had entered into contract with Plaintiff for the repairs, and whether either or both defendants were unjustly enriched by Plaintiff’s repair of the water main and remediation of damage to the surrounding roadway and curb systems. During closing, Mr. Veith reminded the jury that all of the co-defendant’s communications and actions indicated its intent and acquiescence to enter into a contract for emergent repairs with Plaintiff, but that, only after its receipt of Plaintiff’s repair invoice, the co-defendant denied its intent to contract with Plaintiff, and argued that Equix bore responsibility for payment of the repair costs. After Mr. Veith’s closing, Plaintiff’s counsel—in open court—dismissed all claims versus Equix, and Equix was therefore removed from the verdict form. Hence, the question of whether Equix was unjustly enriched by Plaintiff’s emergent repairs performed during the holiday season was removed from the verdict form prior to jury deliberations. Read More
Mr. Perry was employed by Co-Defendant, PeopleReady, who was hired by the Defendants’ to perform maintenance work within its mobile home park. Tragically, Mr. Perry was shot and killed by a co-worker after a work-related dispute while on Defendants’ premises. Subsequently, Mr. Perry’s Estate brought a Wrongful Death Action against the Defendants (MHP) for negligence and demanded seven figures to resolve the matter on behalf of the Estate, his wife, and three survivors. After argument of counsel, Judge Amy Williams, in the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Pinellas County, Florida GRANTED Defendants’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment based upon Vertical Immunity under the Florida Workers’ Compensation statute. Read more
Senior Partner Marc M. Greenberg, Boca Raton Office, prevailed on a Final Summary Judgment on a negligent security cause of action. This matter arose out of a shoplifter (hereinafter referred to as “Perpetrator”) concealing and stealing two pieces of merchandise from inside of the store. While that criminal activity was occurring, the Defendant’s Loss Prevention Employee was watching the video cameras. He noticed that the perpetrator was large in stature and decided to call law enforcement instead of approaching the perpetrator inside the store. The Loss Prevention Employee stayed on his cellular telephone with the Sheriff’s Deputy so that he could guide the officer of the perpetrator’s location upon law enforcement’s arrival into the parking lot. The Loss Prevention Employee remained the eyes and ears for law enforcement during that five minute time period.
Once the perpetrator got near his vehicle to leave the premise, he was stopped by the Sheriff’s Deputy in the vast parking lot and asked to produce identification. Within seconds the perpetrator began walking in the opposite direction, grabbed his firearm from his waistband and began firing at the deputy less than 10 feet away. Within seconds a second deputy arrived and returned gunfire. No one got shot and the perpetrator ran through the parking lot heading east bound. The front parking lot consisted of 16 rows. After running through seven rows eastbound, the perpetrator grabbed a vehicle driver’s side door handle which was locked. After unsuccessfully attempting to carjack a vehicle occupied by a man and women, the perpetrator fired one shot through the driver’s side window. Unfortunately, the bullet went through the driver’s right arm and exited his right arm and then stuck the passenger’s left shoulder/chest area, where fragments remain today. These Co-Plaintiffs continued driving to the main road and flagged down law enforcement. A total of 90 seconds elapsed from the time law enforcement approached the perpetrator until the shooting of the Plaintiffs. Read more
Meghan Theodore and Matt Moschell obtained Summary Judgment in a premises liability action in matter styled Faria v. Defendant Store arising out of an alleged slip and fall. Plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell on a transitory foreign substance that was purportedly present for an extended period of time in Defendant Store’s parking lot.
At the outset of the case, Plaintiff requested the closed circuit television (CCTV) depicting the alleged incident. Based on Florida and federal case law, we objected to this request, and were able to prevent disclosure of the CCTV footage until after Plaintiff’s deposition. Notably, the CCTV footage showed Plaintiff stumble for a brief moment, but never entirely fall to the ground. However, Plaintiff told a different story at deposition—Plaintiff described the incident as a violent fall that caused his entire back to strike hard against the ground. The Court in turn granted our Motion for Summary Judgment and found that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that Defendant Store was therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Senior Associate Tabitha Jackson, Esq., and her team in Tallahassee recently won a Motion to Strike Attorney’s Fees under § 627.401, Florida Statutes in matter styled Peter Harmon & Debra Harmon v. First Protective Insurance Company d/b/a Frontline Insurance. In Florida, you may sue for indemnity and also fees. Though, in the event an insurance policy was delivered to an insured out of the State of Florida, an insured is prohibited from seeking fees. This is helpful when an insured sues for damage to a vacation home or second home, though the applicable insurance policy was delivered and issued to the insured at their homestead place of residence (outside of Florida). Here, Frontline had delivered the applicable policy to New Hampshire, for an insured property located in Florida. Though, because the policy was issued and delivered to New Hampshire, the insureds were prohibited from seeking fees under § 627.428, Florida Statutes.
Junior Partner Matthew Wendler, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in First Party Property matter on January 2, 2022, the eve of trial, putting an end to the litigation that had been ongoing for over two years. The complaint in Bobbili v. Defendant Insurance Company was filed in July 2019, following Defendant’s denial of the insureds’ claim for water damage and mold on the basis of long-term leakage or seepage. Before suit was filed, Defendant was unable to determine the specific cause and origin of the loss because the insureds opted not to retain a contractor to cut out the affected drywall to repair the system or appliance from which the leak emanated. After suit was filed, Plaintiffs did not mitigate their damages: they did not retain a contractor to fix the leak, so it continued to cause damage to their home.
Following the depositions of the plaintiffs’ general contractor and engineer, Defendant timely filed a motion for summary judgment. Due to the court’s unilateral cancelation of the special-set hearing on the motion, Defendant was unable to have it heard prior to trial. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion included an affidavit signed by one of the plaintiffs crafted in a manner to create a factual issue for trial, to suggest that the loss resulted from a faulty December 2017 repair such that all ensuing damages relating to the March 2018 claim would be covered under the policy.
When the parties exchanged exhibits, Plaintiffs produced two photographs that had not previously been produced in discovery. Defendant suspected that the photographs were not taken in December 2017 (as suggested in the affidavit used to oppose the motion for summary judgment) and requested Plaintiffs to produce the original photographs so the metadata could be analyzed. Upon receipt of the original photographs, produced two days before trial, the metadata showed that the photographs were taken almost a year before what had been represented in the affidavit. Upon discovery of this information, Defendant informed Plaintiffs and offered to not pursue fees and costs from the long-expired nominal proposals for settlement if Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed the notice of dismissal with prejudice on January 2, 2022, the eve of trial, putting an end to the litigation that had been ongoing for over two years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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