News & Events

Rod Lundy, a partner, and Tylar Heintz, an associate, both of our Orlando office, secured a favorable verdict in Orange County, Florida following a 7 day trial.

Conroy Simberg's Hinda Klein obtains a reversal of a trial court‘s award of attorney fees in a PIP suit filed over pennies of interest.On August 17, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued its opinion in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. PAN AM Diagnostic Services Inc. d/b/a PAN AM Diagnostic of Orlando a/a/o Claudine Jean, 4D21-2156, (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), reversing an attorney fee award of $24,028.27 in a suit filed over $0.14 cents of statutory interest.

Dale L. Friedman, a partner in the firm’s Hollywood Office, and Diane H. Tutt, an appellate partner in the firm’s Hollywood Office, recently obtained summary judgment in a wrongful death case brought by the personal representative (mother) of an intellectually disabled adult who was residing in a group home and was struck and killed by a vehicle as he walked across a roadway to get a snack.  The Plaintiff was represented by a very well respected personal injury law firm in Palm Beach. 

Noelia Vaccaro, an associate in the firm’s first party property & coverage practice, and appellate associate, Sam Spinner, prevailed on a motion for summary judgment on a first-party property claim that was originally reported as a loss caused by a faulty sprinkler head. Several years later, and in the middle of the case, the plaintiffs changed the cause of loss to Hurricane Irma. The trial court granted final summary judgment for the defense, finding that the evidence showed that Hurricane Irma did not create an opening in the property’s exterior walls that allowed for interior water intrusion.  

Noelia Vaccaro, an associate in the firm’s first party property & coverage practice, and appellate associate, Sam Spinner, were recently successful in a first-party property Tropical Storm Gordon claim. The Defense filed a Daubert motion to strike the plaintiff’s expert. The court agreed that the plaintiff’s expert testimony did not meet the Daubert standard as the methodology was conclusory. As a result of the Court granting defendant’s Daubert motion, the plaintiffs dismissed the action on the eve of trial.