Trial Verdicts and Results
Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Emergency Remediation Services, LLC a/a/o Luis Mesa v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. 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, presenting the argument that Plaintiff failed to provide notice of its purported assignment prior to filing suit, that Defendant’s contractual obligations are not triggered until the moment notice of the assignment is provided, and that it could not be said that Defendant had denied a valid claim which could have given rise to a breach of contract action. On the eve of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled William Guy v. Tower Hill Select 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 served Plaintiff with its Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Florida Statute §57.105, arguing that the loss was expressly excluded by a policy endorsement, and thus Plaintiff’s claim was frivolous in nature. Upon receipt of the motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled So. Fla. Water Restoration, Inc. a/a/o Francisco Paris v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. 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, making the argument that the insured had not complied with the post-loss duties imposed by the policy, by failing to submit to an examination under oath, and as an assignee standing in the shoes of the assignor, Plaintiff was not entitled to the recovery of any benefits under the insurance policy. Following receipt of the motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled Bernard Etienne v. Citizens Property Insurance Company. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by not paying the full amount of damages sustained to his property from Hurricane Irma. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, maintaining the position that Plaintiff failed to comply with the insurance policy’s appraisal provision. On the eve of the hearing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Miami Junior Partner Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal with prejudice in the matter styled The Restoration Team a/a/o Yania Padilla v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. 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, making the argument that the services rendered by Plaintiff, which were performed 17 months after the date of loss, did not constitute necessary emergency measures, and were therefore not covered under the insurance policy. Following receipt of the motion, and just before the deposition of its corporate representative, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Anthony Perez, Esq., obtained a dismissal in the matter styled Besner Sanon v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant breached the insurance contract by denying coverage for his claim for damage to his property resulting from a plumbing leak in the kitchen. Defendant maintained its position that the loss was excluded from coverage pursuant to the insurance policy’s provision pertaining to damage caused by constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water, and the applicable anti-concurrent cause provision. On the eve of trial, Plaintiff dismissed the case. Read More.
Stuart Managing Partner Lauren Smith, Esq., was granted summary judgment in a premises liability matter styled Cardullo v. South Florida Materials. The case arose from a slip-and-fall at a fuel terminal in Port Everglades. Plaintiff claimed over $350,000.00 in damages. Read More.
Lauren Smith, Esq., obtained reversal of several portions of a $150,000.00 fee judgment entered against Citizens in matter styled Citizens v. Casanas Appeal. This included a multiplier, resulting in a reduction of nearly $100,000.00. Read More.
Lauren Smith, Esq., successfully obtained affirmance of a final summary judgment entered in Citizens’ favor on the issue of the $3,000.00 emergency water mitigation cap in matter styled All Insurance Restoration a/a/o Cediel v. Citizens. The Third DCA wrote an in-depth opinion agreeing with Citizens’ arguments, which will help defend against these claims in the future. Read More.
Following a 3-day trial in Broward County Circuit Court, the jury returned a defense verdict on December 3, 2021.
Senior Partner, Franklin Sato, Esq., and Senior Associate, Vanesti Bennett, Esq., obtained a defense verdict in a breach of a commercial lease matter styled Thomas Campaniello v. Guilty Pleasures SF LLC in Broward County Circuit Court before the Honorable Keathan Frink.
This case stems from a breach of a commercial lease agreement between Mr. Campaniello, as Landlord, and Guilty Pleasures, as Tenant. Due to the Tenant’s failure to make its monthly rent payments and failure to timely exercise its option to renew the lease under the lease terms, the Landlord filed suit against the Tenant. As a result of the lawsuit brought by the Landlord, the Tenant then countersued the Landlord alleging damages for its buildouts of approximately $200,000.00, future loss of sales and its damaged inventory of approximately $27,000.00 due to the heat in the building allegedly caused by the non-functioning air conditioning units.
Specifically, the Tenant brought four causes of action against the Landlord. A few weeks prior to the trial, as it relates to the Counterclaim, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Landlord on three out of the four counts that the Tenant brought against the Landlord, on the basis that the Tenant was not entitled to damages for its buildouts per the lease terms, there was no entitlement to future loss of sales as being too speculative and no basis for a declarative judgment. The trial, as to the Counterclaim, proceeded on the breach of lease count wherein the Tenant sought recovery for its alleged damaged inventory.
After less than an hour of deliberation, the jury rendered a verdict determining that the Tenant breached, there was no breach by the Landlord and awarded $0 damages as to the alleged damaged inventory claimed in the Counterclaim. A proposal for settlement was previously served on behalf of the Landlord, as it relates to the Counterclaim, which was rejected by the Tenant. Consequently, the Landlord will move to recover its attorney’s fees and cost on that basis and on the lease provisions. Read more
After a 4 day trial in federal court, the jury returned a verdict of $1.00 on November 10, 2021 in an excessive force matter styled Slayden v. Castro, et al.
Ft. Lauderdale Managing Partner Dorsey Miller and Senior Partner Frank Sato obtained this favorable verdict in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Plaintiff, an inmate at the Broward County Main Jail, alleged that he was attacked by two BSO deputies in the early morning hours of August 7, 2018. The Plaintiff claimed that approximately 3 hours before the incident, one of the deputies covered one of two windows on his cell to conceal the attack from the surveillance cameras. Conversely, the Defendant deputies argued that the Plaintiff’s window was covered because he had exposed himself through that window to female officers working in the Control Booth of Plaintiff’s unit on multiple occasions, including the evening before the alleged incident. In retaliation, the Plaintiff attempted to flood his cell with water. After shutting the water off, the officers entered Plaintiff’s cell, at which point they were attacked by the Plaintiff. The officers defended themselves by using strikes and O.C. pepper foam and were ultimately able to subdue Plaintiff and handcuff him. He was then escorted to the vestibule area where he was treated for minor injuries. No other force was used and the deputies were not injured.
The Defendants argued that the force used was not excessive and that they were fully justified in their use of reasonable force based upon BSO policy and procedure and applicable provisions of Florida law. Defendants also argued that any alleged injuries sustained by Plaintiff resulted from his use of violence in resisting the aforementioned lawful actions of the Defendants, and/or from several subsequent altercations in which Plaintiff was involved. Based upon Plaintiff’s testimony on direct examination, the Defendants were able to introduce evidence that Plaintiff had a prior felony conviction for resisting arrest with violence and that he continued to expose himself even after the alleged incident. Defendants also argued that the Plaintiff sustained no permanent injuries as a result of the alleged incident, nor any sequelae from those alleged injuries. After six and a half hours of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of $1.00. Read more
Jacksonville Defense Verdict November 2, 2021. During closing arguments, Plaintiff requested a verdict in excess of $1.3M.
Jacksonville Managing Partner Todd Springer, Esq., and Junior Partner Deana Dunham, Esq., obtained a defense verdict following a three day jury trial in matter styled Joyce Daugherty v. Defendant Retail Store in Baker County, Florida. Mrs. Daugherty, a 70 year old preschool teacher, alleged that Defendant breached its duty by negligently allowing a “saturated” mat to remain on the floor of the store’s vestibule, which caused Plaintiff to slip and fall. As a result of the incident, the Plaintiff claimed an injury to her right hip, for which she underwent emergency surgery and expressed continued complaints of pain and limitations. Plaintiff presented medical bills totaling approximately $150,000.00, although the court had previously granted Defendant’s Motion in Limine to limit the medical bills to what was allowed by Medicare. The parties stipulated to past medical expenses in the amount of the liens, which totaled approximately $43,000.00.
Prior to the trial, the court had granted Plaintiff’s spoliation motion, based on the inadvertent loss of 48 minutes of CCTV video prior to the fall. This resulted in a jury instruction that Defendant had a duty to maintain additional in-store video, which it did not do; and as a result the jury should find for Plaintiff unless Defendant rebutted the presumption of negligence by a greater weight of the evidence.
Defendant overcame the presumption of negligence using photographs taken by the store manager approximately 13 minutes after Plaintiff’s fall which showed the condition of the mat to be reasonably dry; and by eliciting testimony from the former store manager about his observations of the area at the time of his inspection. Defendant also used the CCTV video itself, which showed 12 minutes before the fall, and approximately an hour and a half after the fall. Defendant was able to demonstrate that the carpeted mat was not saturated and was reasonably safe.
Plaintiff elicited testimony from the responding paramedic that the floor was wet and the mat was saturated. The paramedic testified that, while she did not specifically recall the incident, review of a report refreshed her recollection, and that she recalled both the floor and mat being extremely saturated. She also testified that she, herself, had slipped as she entered the store. Defendant demonstrated to the jury that her testimony was unreliable as the CCTV video showed the EMT entering the area through a separate door, and never walking over or looking toward the mat in question.
During closing arguments, Plaintiff requested a verdict in excess of $1.3M. The jury returned a defense verdict within approximately 40 minutes. A proposal for settlement was filed early in this case, which has allowed the client the opportunity to recover most of the defense fees and costs in this matter. Read more
Senior Partner Marc Greenberg, Esq., and Appellate Partner Daniel Weinger, Esq., obtained Summary Judgment in the Trip and Fall matter styled Jane Doe v. Retail Store (Palm Beach County). Plaintiff arrived on Defendant’s premises for the purpose of shopping. She exited her vehicle with a garbage bag and intended to throw the garbage into a garbage can situated in the parking lot. Instead of staying in the parking lot to throw her garbage away, Plaintiff took a quicker route through landscaping. While doing so, Plaintiff tripped and fell into a large hole. The fall resulted in multiple surgeries and medical bills in excess of $300,000. The Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that a landowner owes no duty of care to maintain or to warn an invitee of the presence of landscaping features, including holes within landscaping. Plaintiff’s reduced demand prior to the hearing was $300,000.
Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge John Kastrenakes granted the Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment and held that “Florida Courts have held that Landscaping features, such as the case at bar, are generally found not to constitute a dangerous condition as a Matter of Law.” See also K.G. v. Winter Springs Cmty. Evangelical Church, 509 So.2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); see also Dampier v. Morgan Tire & Auto, LLC, 82 So.3d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). In Dampier, the Court held that “… a raised landscape planting bed, and tree stump therein, did not constitute a dangerous condition that could give rise to liability or a duty to warn on the part of the premises owner when business invitee tripped and fell when cutting across planting bed on his way to parking lot from a public sidewalk.” Id. at 204. Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs is pending. Read more
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