Florida

Two Recent Florida Fifth DCA Opinions Highlight Questions of Improper Statements at Closing Argument, and one Florida’s First DCA Opinion Interprets the Statute of Repose
Aldonia Mootry, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Russell Mootry, Jr. v. Bethune-Cookman University, Inc. et al.,44 Fla. L. Weekly D1999a (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
R and W Rental Properties, LLC v. Warry Warnick, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2044a (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
James Harrell v. The Ryland Group, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2054b (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)

Pier 1 Cruise Experts v. Revelex Corporation, No. 17-13956 (11th Circuit. 2019)
Miguel Lopez v. WilsonArt, LLC et al, 44 Fla. L Weekly D1808a, Fla. 5th DCA, July 12, 2019

It seems like only yesterday (October 2018 to be exact), that litigation attorneys in Florida were buzzing about the Florida Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision in DeLisle v. Crane Co.,^[1] which seemed to resolve the question of how courts in the state would analyze the admissibility of expert testimony and evidence. In the DeLisle opinion the…

Even in situations where a duty may be owed, valid exculpatory clauses in agreements between parties can operate to shift the risk of injury and liability from one contracting party to another.  Yes that is correct, under certain circumstances in situations where a defendant’s negligence may have resulted in a plaintiff’s injury, the right language in a contract between the parties can be utilized to avoid liability and obtain a favorable ruling from a judge.  This article will discuss what an exculpatory clause is, the standards by which they are judged, and how courts in Florida interpret those clauses when making decisions regarding liability.

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal holds Florida’s statutory accident report privilege does not preclude discovery of statements made by individuals involved in the accident for purposes of completed the crash report.

Two Relevant Opinions Regarding the Discovery of Information Related to Non-Party Confidential Information, and an Opinion Noting the Importance of Including All Elements on a Jury Verdict Form

Fourth DCA holds treating physicians internal cost structure information constitutes a confidential trade secret, but defendants could still obtain same in discovery if the parties could negotiate a confidentiality agreement as to the information.

Lake Worth Surgical Center, Inc. v. Crereser Gates et al, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D572a, Fla 4^th DCA, February 27, 2019

Plaintiff sued defendants for damages resulting from a car accident between plaintiff and defendant.  Plaintiff was treated at a surgical center operated by Lake Worth Surgical Center (“the Surgical Center”), and plaintiff was billed for services related to an arthroscopic knee surgery and supplies.

Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution in which the parties agree to resolve their case outside of a traditional courtroom by going before an arbitrator who will hear the dispute and issue a binding decision.  In most cases arbitration is quicker and less financially costly than litigation, and the proceedings can be kept private.  More and more, businesses are choosing to include arbitration agreements within their contracts in order to take advantage of the many benefits.

In a 4-3 decision, the Florida Supreme Court settled the ongoing uncertainty regarding the Frye vs. Daubert expert evidence standard. The Court determined a 2013 legislative revision to the Florida Evidence Code was unconstitutional and infringed on the Court’s rule-making authority. The result is a clear statement of the so-called Frye standard as the governing analysis for admissibility.

Suzanne Harvey v. GEICO General Insurance Company, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S375a

The critical inquiry in a bad faith claim is whether the insurer diligently, and with the same haste and precision as if it were in the insured’s shoes, worked on the insured’s behalf to avoid an excess judgment.  In a 4-3 decision, Florida’s Supreme Court reversed an Appellate Court’s “misapplication” of Florida’s bad faith precedent, concluding the court below erred in holding the evidence was insufficient to show the insurer acted in bad faith in failing to settle the insured’s claim.

A Comparison of Recent Opinions Related to Dismissal for Fraud on the Court

An allegation of fraud on the court is a serious accusation, and, if established, can result in sanctions up to, and including, the dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim.

Melitina Valiente v. R.J. Behar & Company, Inc. et al.[1]

Third District Court of Appeal, Florida

Opinion filed June 6, 2018[2]

43 Fla. L. Weekly D1277c

In a split opinion, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment for defendants based on the Slavin doctrine.

Background

The Slavin doctrine originated in 1995, from the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in Slavin v. Kay.[3] Despite its age, Slavin continues to be a staple in certain negligence actions because it provides contractors, architects and engineers, a reasonable defense to liability. The Slavin doctrine relieves a contractor of liability for injuries to third parties when the contractor’s work is complete, the owner of the property accepts the work, and the defect that allegedly caused the injury is patent.[4]  The Slavin doctrine presumes the owner made a “reasonably careful inspection” of the contractor’s work, prior to accepting it as complete, and thereby “accepts the defect and the negligence that caused the defect as his own.”[5]