Verdicts by Attorney: Peterfriend, William J.
Managing Partner William Peterfriend, Esq., and Junior Partner Erin O’Connell, Esq., obtained a favorable result in a general liability negligence matter. Plaintiff filed suit against multiple defendants as a result of alleged injuries she sustained in a trip and fall on her own property. She specifically claimed she tripped on a piece of missing or broken sidewalk in her yard, causing her to fall. Defendant G&H Concrete and Sod, Inc. had previously performed work on sidewalks in Plaintiff’s neighborhood. In her deposition, Plaintiff testified that she was tired of seeing debris in her yard and elected to go out and rake it up. While admittedly walking backward and not looking where she was going, she tripped and fell over something. She testified she did not know what she tripped on. Plaintiff further testified that she merely assumed the debris in her yard was from Defendant G&H. Her testimony reflected that the debris was present in her yard prior to when she moved on to the property, and she was aware of it.
Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the alleged dangerous condition caused by the debris in Plaintiff’s yard was open and obvious. Plaintiff was admittedly aware of the debris, admitted she went to rake up said debris, and admitted she was not looking where she was walking as she moved backwards, therefore she was not sure what it was she tripped over. Further, Defendant argued that they owed no duty to the Plaintiff as they were never in possession or control of the premises where the fall occurred, nor had they been in the vicinity of the property for over two months prior to the date of loss. The Court, and Honorable Judge Nicholas Lopane agreed with Defendant, and entered an Order for Final Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant. Plaintiff initially demanded $250,000.00.
Verdict of $125,918.63 ACV - April 21, 2022 - Three-Day Jury Trial in Lee County.
Fort Myers Senior Partner Patrick Boland, Esq., Senior Associate Brittany Cocchieri, Esq., and Fort Lauderdale Managing Partner William Peterfriend, Esq., obtained a favorable result in a Hurricane Irma property claim for damages to a property located in Fort Myers, Florida. The matter styled Joe L. Pressler v. Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company involved a condemned property due to Hurricane Irma damage and pre-existing damage, as well as Plaintiff’s failure to conduct timely and adequate repairs after Hurricane Irma. The Defense was successful in having the trial issues limited to damages under Coverages A (Dwelling) and B (Other Structures) only, though Plaintiff was originally claiming damages under Coverages C (Personal Property) and D (Additional Living Expenses) as well. The Defense successfully had the claims under Coverages C and D abated, due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely provide any documentation in support of those claims until the month of trial. This significantly lessened the potential exposure at trial for our client, as before those claims were abated, Plaintiff’s demand was significantly more than what Plaintiff ultimately asked for at trial for Coverages A and B. At trial for Coverages A and B, Plaintiff asked for $317,450.38.
The case was tried over three days before Chief Judge Michael McHugh in Lee County. Our client, Tower Hill, insured the Plaintiff’s property at the time of Hurricane Irma. Plaintiff timely reported a claim for Hurricane Irma damage to Tower Hill, but was thereafter unresponsive and failed to maintain communication with Tower Hill, forcing Tower Hill to eventually close the claim due to inactivity and unresponsiveness. Tower Hill later re-opened the claim on its own volition, and ultimately issued a $100,667.24 check to Plaintiff for his property damages, after removal of recoverable depreciation at $35,288.70 and the applicable hurricane deductible of $5,100. Plaintiff received but did not endorse the check, later claiming a satisfied lienholder was incorrectly listed as a payee and the check amount was not enough for his damages. However, Plaintiff never advised Tower Hill of any issue or disagreement with the check amount or payees, and Plaintiff ultimately held onto the check for years after receiving it while the property continued to deteriorate to the point Lee County condemned the home.
The Defense did not dispute that the property was damaged by Hurricane Irma, but argued that the extent of the damages sustained was exacerbated by the Plaintiff’s failure to do anything with the $100,667.24 check he admitted at trial to receiving. Plaintiff also admitted at trial that despite receiving the check, he never advised Tower Hill of any disagreement he had with the amount and never advised Tower Hill that he could not cash the check because it listed a satisfied lienholder. Plaintiff also admitted at trial that it was the lienholder’s fault – not Tower Hill’s – for not timely filing the appropriate documentation regarding the satisfaction. Plaintiff also admitted that he never advised Tower Hill at any time that the lien was satisfied, despite his policy and the payment letter clearly requesting he advise Tower Hill if any of the lienholders listed are inaccurate. More than two years passed after Plaintiff received the check but before he filed a lawsuit against Tower Hill. At no point during those two-plus years did Plaintiff communicate with Tower Hill or request the check be re-issued so he could complete repairs to his property. All parties’ experts agreed at trial that the damages significantly worsened over time.
The Defense also argued that the Plaintiff’s roof had pre-existing damage in the form of visible holes and depressions in the roof, and that the roof of this property was by no means in pristine let alone satisfactory condition. This was argued to illustrate the pre-loss condition of the property, as a property insurance policy only requires the insurer to put the property back in its pre-loss condition after a covered loss. Plaintiff at trial requested an amount not only in excess of policy limits but also in excess of what the property pre-loss was worth based on the poor condition of the roof. The Defense called the Plaintiff’s neighbor as a witness who testified that she has lived across the street from the Plaintiff for several years and saw the hole in the roof every single day. The neighbor testified that the hole in the roof significantly grew in size over time and existed long before Hurricane Irma. The neighbor also testified that she never saw any roof repairs done prior to Hurricane Irma – which was an issue, as Plaintiff argued repairs were completed just prior to Hurricane Irma. The Court did not allow the Defense to call a representative from Lee County Code Enforcement as a witness to testify regarding the pre-loss condition of the property or the several ongoing code violations the Plaintiff has received for his property for years before Hurricane Irma.
Opposing counsel asked the jury in closing argument to award Plaintiff $317,450.38 total for damages under Coverage A - Dwelling and Coverage B - Other Structures ($242.19 for a light post on the property), for which the limits of coverage under the policy are $255,000.00 and $5,100.00 respectively. Ultimately the jury returned a verdict finding the total replacement cost value of damages to the Plaintiff’s property under Coverages A and B combined to be $153,125.80, and applicable depreciation to be $27,207.17. Based on the jury’s factual findings, the actual cash value of damages to the Plaintiff’s property is calculated to be $125,918.63. The Defense has filed a post-trial Motion to Determine Verdict Reductions or Application of Set-Offs, which is still pending before the Court. Read more.
Fort Lauderdale Managing Partner, William Peterfriend, Esq., and Boca Raton Junior Partner, Erin O’Connell, Esq., obtained a Dismissal with Prejudice following a hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Pleadings. In the matter styled George Acevedo v. Fitzgerald Auto Sales and Celia T. Fitzgerald, Plaintiff, George Acevedo, claimed damages stemming from a motor vehicle accident and alleging negligence against the driver, Celia Fitzgerald, and vicarious liability against Fitzgerald Auto Sales. Plaintiff claimed injuries to his neck, low back and left shoulder as a result, and initially demanded $250,000.
Defendants’ sought to have Plaintiff examined by their expert through a Compulsory Medical Examination, which was mutually coordinated and scheduled with Plaintiff and his attorney. After Plaintiff’s failure to appear, Defendants’ obtained an Order on their Motion to Secure a Compulsory Medical Examination. Defendants diligently documented all communications with Plaintiff’s counsel in attempting to set and hold the CME, yet, once again, Plaintiff failed to make himself available for examination. As it was apparent that Plaintiff refused to cooperate in litigation, Defendants filed their Motion to Strike Pleadings. On June 17, 2021, the Honorable Judge Kastrenakes entered an Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike Pleadings, striking Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Dismissing the Case With Prejudice due to multiple intentional and willful violations of Court Orders directing compliance with discovery obligations by the Plaintiff. Read more.
Associate Estefania Negrette, Esq., Junior Partner Lisa Taylor, Esq., and Managing Partner William Peterfriend, Esq., obtained a dismissal in a First-Party Property matter styled Island Roofing & Restoration, LLC a/a/o Timothy and Kathleen Burke v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The matter arose from a homeowner’s claim for damage from Hurricane Irma. Plaintiff, via a purported assignment of benefits obtained from the insureds, sought to recover insurance proceeds in excess of $165,000, including the cost for a full roof replacement. The lawsuit was filed by Plaintiff in May 2019, and after several years of contentious litigation, the matter was set to commence trial in February 2021. Prior to trial, Plaintiffs withdrew their experts. In preparation for trial, Defendant moved to exclude lay opinion testimony, hearsay testimony regarding the alleged damages, and testimony regarding previously unreported damages. In response, Plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal on the eve of trial. Read more
Associate Brittany Ehrenman, Esq., Managing Partner William Peterfriend, Esq., and Senior Partner James Sparkman, Esq., obtained a dismissal in a First-Party Property matter styled Island Roofing & Restoration, LLC a/a/o Betty Hoffman v. United Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The matter arose from a homeowner’s claim for damage allegedly from Hurricane Irma. Plaintiff, via a purported electronically signed assignment of benefits obtained from the Insured, sought to recover insurance proceeds in excess of $168,000, including the cost for a full roof replacement. The lawsuit was filed by Plaintiff in May 2019, and after several years of litigation, the matter was set to begin trial in March 2021. After taking the Insured’s deposition, it became clear that the Insured did not sign the assignment of benefits. Defendant prepared a Motion for Summary Judgment to argue that Plaintiff had no standing to bring the lawsuit. Just three weeks before trial, Plaintiff attempted to correct their standing issue and filed an Emergency Motion to Amend their Complaint. In preparation for trial, Defendant moved to present evidence of Plaintiff and Insured’s non-compliance with policy conditions and to exclude hearsay testimony regarding the alleged damages and lay opinion testimony. Following an eleventh hour emergency motion by opposing counsel to withdraw from the case, Plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal. Read more
Fort Lauderdale Managing Partner William Peterfriend, Esq., Junior Partner Erin O’Connell, Esq., and Appellate Partner Daniel Weinger, Esq., obtained a Dismissal with Prejudice pending a hearing on motion to strike pleadings for fraud on the court. In the matter styled Romeo Hebert v. Robert Boutin and Walks and Decks, Inc., Plaintiff, Romeo Hebert, claimed damages stemming from an accident in which he flipped over the handlebars of his bicycle in his neighborhood, resulting in injuries to his right hip and right leg. Plaintiff claimed that he was riding his bicycle in his neighborhood and suddenly came upon a forklift owned and operated by Walks and Decks, Inc., causing him to swerve out of the way and crash his bike. Co-Defendant was a neighbor of Plaintiff who was driving around the forklift at the time that Plaintiff crashed his bicycle. Read more
Fort Lauderdale Managing Partner William Peterfriend, Esq., Senior Associate Erin O’Connell, Esq., and Appellate Partner Daniel Weinger, Esq. obtained a favorable result when the court granted Defendant’s Motion to Strike Pleadings for Fraud on the Court. In the matter styled Sultan v. Verdes Tropicana, Inc., Plaintiff, Diane Sultan, was claiming injuries and damages stemming from a slip and fall in a bowling alley due to an alleged malfunction of a Keigel Ion lane machine, which Plaintiff claimed dropped oil when being moved from one lane to the next. Plaintiff claimed that oil dripped and was the cause of her fall while bowling in a league at the Defendant, Verdes Tropicana, Inc.’s bowling alley. Read more
Boca Raton Partner William Peterfriend, Esq. and Associate Erin O’Connell, Esq. prevailed in Final Judgment in a PIP matter styled East Coast Medical Rehab, Inc. a/a/o Reyna Terrero v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Read More
Daniel J. Santaniello, Managing Partner and William J. Peterfriend, Associate received a win for a slip and fall incident April 27, 2007. Plaintiff alleged Defendants failed to properly maintain and inspect the stairs outside Plaintiff’s condominium unit, thereby allowing leaves and sap to accumulate. Plaintiff claimed to have fallen as a result of slipping on wet leaves and sap after a rainfall the night before the morning of the incident. Plaintiff alleged that as a result of the subject accident, she fractured her left elbow. Defendant maintained that maintenance procedures were adequate and Plaintiff failed to provide any proof of leaves ever existing or accumulating on the steps, in the form of either testimony or photographs. Plaintiff demanded $100K immediately prior to trial The Jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant finding that that there was no negligence on the part of either Defendant. Read More
Daniel Santaniello and William Peterfriend obtained a defense verdict on March 7, 2007 for a vehicular liability case when the Jury found that the Defendant Ms. Naso was not the legal cause of loss, injury or damage to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that on September 29, 2003 the Defendant violated a stop sign on Commerce Parkway. Defendant admitted liability, but alleged that the accident was not the legal cause of loss, injury or damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that as a result of the subject accident, she sustained permanent injuries to her lower back. Plaintiff also alleged to have suffered injuries to her neck, left arm, left knee and left thigh. Plaintiff maintained that the injury in her back was permanent and left her unable to enjoy life and severely limited her future earning capacity as a Chemist. Plaintiff was first treated in the Emergency Room which documented an injury to the back and left knee, with severe bruising and evidence of trauma.
Paul Jones, Partner and William Peterfriend, Esq. received a major win for a vehicular liability in Broward County. The Jury awarded $0 for total amount of damages for reasonable and necessary medical expenses sustained by Plaintiff. The jury answered No to the issue of permanency. The Plaintiff filed suit alleging that on January 25, 2004, Defendant violated a red light signal when exiting the Florida Turnpike onto Red Road. Defendant contended at trial Plaintiff violated the red light. Defendant further contended that Plaintiff was driving with alcohol on his breath after partying on South Beach the night prior to the accident. Plaintiff claimed that as a result of the subject accident, he sustained permanent scarring and permanent injuries to his neck. Plaintiff’s treating physician Dr. Alex Cintron, D.C., testified that Plaintiff had a 5% impairment rating. Defendant’s expert, Dr. Christopher Troiano testified that Plaintiff showed no signs of objective injury. Read More