Posted in Newsletters - 2013 on December 18, 2013
Dale L. Friedman recently obtained summary judgment in an invasion of privacy case and then, was awarded attorneys fees and costs against the Plaintiff and her attorney. This case began in 2009 and early 2010, when Faddis was Deputy City manager for the City of Homestead (City). The City Manager was Mike Shehadeh (Shehadeh) and an investigation was commenced against him for possible misconduct in late 2009. Patrick Franklin (Franklin) was hired by the City to conduct the investigation. During the investigation, text messages sent by Shehadeh to Faddis were uncovered, which related to Shehadeh’s feelings towards Faddis.
Posted in Newsletters - 2013 on September 19, 2013
Joshua Canton, associate in our Tallahassee office, won a defense verdict in an automobile negligence case on 9/16/13. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant negligently operated her vehicle on 12/16/05, thereby causing the Defendant's vehicle to enter the Plaintiff's lane of travel, resulting in a motor vehicle accident. The Defendant claimed the Plaintiff negligently operated her vehicle thereby causing the motor vehicle accident. There were no witnesses to the accident other than the parties.
Posted in Newsletters - 2013 on August 26, 2013
Rod Lundy, Partner in our Orlando office, and his trial team of Associates, Jeffrey Carter, and Senior Associate, Diane Tutt, obtained a complete defense verdict in a mixed commercial/tort case. The Amended Complaint alleged counts in breach of contract, trespass and unjust enrichment. The dispute involved an agreement regarding a mound of dirt approximately 35 feet high and approximately 2 ½ acres in diameter.
Posted in Newsletters - 2013 on April 1, 2013
In Ergas v. Universal Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 38 Fla. L. Weekly D900 (Fla. 4th DCA, April 24, 2013), the Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether a homeowner’s property insurance policy exclusion for “wear and tear, marring, deterioration” excluded coverage for the insureds’ claim for damage to their tile floor caused when an insured dropped a hammer on the floor, causing it to chip. The insureds argued that the term “marring” was ambiguous because it was not defined in the policy and that, in the context of the exclusion, the term contemplated damage gradually occurring over time. In response, Universal argued that none of the terms in the exclusion required interpretation by reference to the others. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the carrier, finding that the exclusion for “marring” applied to exclude coverage for the insureds’ claim.
Summer_2013.pdf Read More