Florida Rules Decisions

In this auto accident case, the defendant insurer hired two law firms: one to defend a claim for personal injury protection (PIP) and another to defend a claim for uninsured motorist benefits (UM).  The law firm defending the UM claim served a proposal for settlement appearing to cover all claims.  The defendant prevailed on all issues.  The trial court declined to award fees.  It found the offer ambiguous because there were two law firms involved and it was unclear whether the proposal covered the PIP claim in addition to the UM claim.  The Fourth District affirmed, agreeing with the trial court that the situation created a latent ambiguity.

Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Lawrence Pollinger, 35 Fla. L. Wkly D1866d (Fla. 4th DCA Aug. 18, 2010)

We are always planning new features and ways to enhance the site.  Join our mailing list to get a first look at what's coming next:

In this case, the defendants were sued and initially filed a "bare bones" pro se answer.  Months later, the plaintiff served a motion for summary judgment.  A week later, and before the hearing, the defendants served an amended answer with affirmative defenses, which the motion for summary judgment did not address.  The trial court denied leave to amend and granted summary judgment for the plaintiff.  The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion because "all doubts should be resolved in favor of allowing the amendment and refusal to do so generally constitutes an abuse of discretion unless it clearly appears that allowing the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile."

 

STEPHANIE J. CROWN AND JOHN J. CROWN v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D1703d (Fla. 5th DCA July 30, 2010)

In a rather complicated lawsuit featuring Dr. Minotty, the Defendant, being sued in a shareholder derivative action by the company he created, the Florida Eye Institute, and, individually, by three doctors who owned stock in the Florida Eye Institute, for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) securities fraud, (3) common law fraud, (4) illegal interception of communications (see Sec. 934.04, Fla. Stat.), (5) tortuous interference with business relationships, (6) invasion of privacy, and (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint on the eve of trial to include claims for punitive damages.  

In this case of modern day witness tampering, the CFO of Sky Development, Inc. first passed a witness a note during the deposition, for which he was admonished, then, at trial, during a sidebar, sent the same witness two text messages advising him on his testimony.  After discovering the text messages, the trial court immediately declared a mistrial.  Vista View then moved for dismissal, which the court granted, with prejudice.  

The Florida Supreme Court has issued an opinion updating the rules governing mediation procedures in the state's appellate courts.

In this medical negligence action ending in a defense verdict, the trial court awarded a new trial because a juror failed to disclose "material litigation history" during voir dire.  The appellate court found that the "the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial" as a result of the omission by the juror.

TARPON SPRINGS HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, INC., v. SHIRLEY RETH, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D1532a (Fla. 2d DCA July 9, 2010)

On June 24, 2010, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion updating Rules 9.300, 9.400, and 9.410, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, in recognition that the procedure for filing a 57.105 Motion before the appellate courts was ambiguous.  The Court noted, however, that the new procedure is to be followed for any motion for sanctions.

The new Rule 9.410 provides that a motion for sanctions must be served on the opposing party before the deadline for submitting a responsive paper or brief.  If no responsive paper or brief is to be served to the challenged paper, then the deadline is 15 days from the date the challenged paper is served.  As per 57.105, the motion for sanctions should be filed with the court 21 days after being served on the opposing party.

The rules have been updated to reflect the amendments.

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, Case No. SC09-2602 (Fla. June 24, 2010)

If you can spare a second, please complete this short, three question, survey: