The Florida Insurance Law Blog
By Jeffrey T. Donner, Esq.
-
In Citizens Property Ins. Co. v. All Insurance Restoration Serv. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023), the Third District reminded us that interlocutory orders merge into the final judgment. The court had occasion to state this well-settled law because Citizens appealed an interlocutory order after the trial court had granted dismissal with prejudice (meaning that Citizens had
-
In Universal Property v. Navlen (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 20, 2023), the Fourth District reversed a jury verdict in favor of insureds based on the trial court’s allowance of the insureds’ expert testimony. A careful examination of this opinion is critical. The Fourth District described the facts as follows: The appellate court’s focus on appeal
-
In Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993), the Florida Supreme Court issued its seminal opinion on the tension created between Florida law’s strong preference for having cases resolved on their merits (substance over form) and the importance of following procedure and enforcing deadlines. The court set forth the facts: The Florida Supreme
-
In Heritage Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Condominium Assoc. of Gateway House Apts. Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), the Third District considered an insurance company’s argument that the insured had not complied with all “post-loss obligations” concerning the production of its books and records for copying and inspection. The trial court found that the
-
In Florida Peninsula Ins. Co. v. Newlin, 273 So. 3d 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), the Second District, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial. The court cited the well-established law that trial court rulings on motions for new trial are given great deference on appeal.
-
In Alvarez v. Citizens Property Ins. Corp., 328 So. 3d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), decided under the “old summary judgment standard,” the Third District considered yet another motion for summary judgment filed by Citizens. The trial court had granted it. The Third District reversed because the trial court had improperly weighed the summary judgment
-
In Massey v. Thomas, 342 So. 3d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), the Fourth District considered the issue of missed deadlines and the Florida Supreme Court’s “COVID-era” administrative order with which trial court judges in South Florida have purported to be so concerned the past few years. The appellate court held that the law requires
-
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Medina, 300 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), the Fourth District considered an argument that there had been misconduct by defense counsel and a defense expert witness. The facts of the case were these: At the conclusion of the trial, the jury rendered a defense verdict,
-
In AM Grand Court Lakes LLC v. Rockhill Ins. Co., 68 F.4th 1354 (11th Cir. 2023), the Eleventh Circuit considered a motion for new trial after a jury found $9,280,000.00 in damages in a commercial first-party property insurance case arising out of Hurricane Irma, involving a group of buildings that were operated as an assisted
-
In Vargas v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 333 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), the Third District considered the issue of the interpretation of an insurance policy’s “concealment or fraud” provision providing for forfeiture of coverage when an insured makes “false statements relating to this insurance.” In Vargas, the insured’s statement at issue arose post-loss:
Donner Law Firm 
You must be logged in to post a comment.