September 3, 2024 | Verdicts and Settlements

Fort Myers Partners Secure Defense Verdict in Trip and Fall Case

Cris Casal and Yasmine Kirollos, partners in the Fort Myers office, obtained a defense verdict in a trip and fall case in Sarasota County where they represented a general contractor. The Plaintiff alleged that she was unable to perceive a step in a recently built walkway because it was not painted yellow which caused her to trip over it on her way into the building. Plaintiff alleged that the shade pattern from the landscaping in the area combined with the lack of contrast between the step and the rest of the walkway made it a dangerous condition.  Six weeks before the accident, Plaintiff had undergone a partial right knee replacement. She claimed that her partial knee implant loosened as a result of the fall and necessitated revision total knee surgery.

August 29, 2024 | Verdicts and Settlements

Fort Myers Attorneys Prevail on a Motion for Summary Judgment in a First Party Property Case

Fort Myers managing partner, Cristobal Casal, and attorneys Holly Paar and Piero Sotomayor recently prevailed on a Motion for Summary Judgment in which Defendant argued that Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation failed to comply with Florida Statute 627.70152  The Court agreed that Plaintiffs’ failure to specify and itemize their damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs and include a disputed amount as required by the statute meant that Plaintiffs failed to comply with a condition precedent prior to filing their lawsuit. 

August 28, 2024 | Verdicts and Settlements

Noelia C. Vaccaro Secures Victory in AOB Dismissal Claim

Noelia C. Vaccaro recently prevailed on a motion to dismiss in an AOB case in Hillsborough County, in which the Plaintiff filed a breach of contract based on an alleged assignment of post-loss benefits (AOB) executed by the insured on February 10, 2021. The AOB is governed by section 627.7152, Florida Statutes, which requires all assignment agreements executed on or after July 1, 2019, to include specific elements for validity. Defendant argued the AOB did not comply with the statute because it lacked a written, itemized, per-unit cost estimate of the services to be performed, attaching only invoices for services already completed. The Court agreed with the Defendant, finding that the AOB was invalid and unenforceable because it did not include the required itemized cost estimate for future services, per section 627.7152(2)(a)4.

August 27, 2024 | Verdicts and Settlements

Directed Verdict Secured by Tallahassee Attorneys in Trip and Fall Case

Tallahassee managing partner, Joshua C. Canton, and associate, Justin B. Hales, secured a directed verdict in a trip and fall case in Hillsborough County, Florida against one of America’s largest injury firms, where the Plaintiff claimed a scraper mat outside of a convenience store was a dangerous condition which caused his fall.  The Plaintiff received a lumbar laminectomy and had an ACDF surgical recommendation.  Medical expenses totaled $120,000 with another claimed $130,000 in future medical expenses. Plaintiff was seeking $1,500,000 at trial.  The defense disputed liability, causation, and damages.  Following the close of the Plaintiff’s case-in-chief, the defense moved for a directed verdict on the basis that the Plaintiff had not proven the scraper mat was a dangerous condition.  Before the defense could complete its case-in-chief, the court granted the directed verdict in favor of the Defendant. 

August 21, 2024 | Verdicts and Settlements

Elliott Tubbs and Ryan Shapot Secure Final Summary Judgment in a First Party Property Case

Partner Elliott Tubbs III and associate Ryan Shapot obtained Final Summary Judgment in a first party property claim on behalf of a major Florida homeowners insurance carrier. The claim arose from damages alleged to have come from a plumbing leak under the kitchen sink, but when the Insurer inspected the property, the repairs were already underway and the claimed damage was already removed and discarded.  The Insurer denied coverage based on it being significantly prejudiced by not having been given a reasonable opportunity to inspect the claimed damage.  The Court found that the Insureds failed to comply with the post-loss conditions contained in the insurance policy and that the Insureds materially breached the insurance policy.