THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Arbitration -- Award -- Objection -- Trial de novo -- Insurance -- Homeowners -- Trial court did not err in entering final judgment adopting arbitrator's decision where insured failed to file notice of rejection and motion for trial de novo within 20 days of service of arbitrator's decision -- Filing motion for trial de novo without including notice of rejection of arbitrator's decision did not comply with clear requirements of rule 1.820(h), as amended in 2024
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Estates -- Administration -- Domicile -- Appeal from denial of motion to convert domiciliary probate proceedings to ancillary administration, denial of rehearing, and award of litigation fees and costs in favor of decedent's wife and personal representative of estate -- Considering totality of circumstances, trial court's finding that decedent was domiciled in Florida at time of death, rather than in Brazil where he was living at that time, was supported by competent substantial evidence -- Undisputed record evidence established that decedent was domiciled in Florida for many years, giving rise to presumption of continuing domicile -- Trial court was well within its discretion in finding that movants failed to refute presumption of continuing domicile in Florida where evidence established that decedent acquired his Florida driver's license, visa, and green card, complete with an extension; maintained his Florida vehicle insurance policy; placed his personal property and possessions in storage in Florida; and paid his federal income taxes as a legal resident, consistent with his stated plan to return to state within 180 days
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Injunctions -- Temporary -- Dissolution -- Bondless injunctions -- Damages -- Order denying post-dissolution motion for damages under section 60.07 as to three bondless injunctions affirmed -- Statutory provision allows trial court to assess damages to which a defendant may be entitled under any injunction bond -- No bond was entered on injunctions at issue and none of exceptions warranting relief absent a bond apply -- There was no argument that injunctions were obtained maliciously or in bad faith, and trial court did not dispense with bond “pursuant to the provisions of rule 1.610(b)” that apply when injunction is issued on pleading of government entity
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Hurricane damage -- Wind damage -- Post-loss obligations -- Failure to comply -- Prejudice -- Jury instructions -- Trial court reversibly erred by instructing jury that presumption of prejudice arising from insured's failure to comply with post-loss obligations was inapplicable to all of insurer's post-loss obligation defenses except prompt notice -- Once insurer alleges and establishes that insured failed to substantially comply with any contractually mandated post-loss obligation, prejudice to insurer is presumed and burden shifts to insured to show that insurer was not prejudiced by the insured's breach
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Property -- Coverage -- Conditions precedent -- Presuit notice -- Insured's action against insurer -- Trial court did not err by dismissing insured's action for failure to comply with presuit notice requirements of section 627.70152(3)(a) -- Notice insured had provided prior to filing of an earlier identical lawsuit, which insured voluntarily dismissed, did not satisfy notice requirements of instant lawsuit -- Statute's presuit notice requirement is “suit-specific,” not “claim-specific,” and an insured must comply with that requirement any time the insured files a new suit
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration -- Amendments -- Communication technology -- Requests for accommodations by persons with disabilities
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Contracts -- Loss of filial consortium -- Dismissal -- With prejudice -- Opportunity to amend -- Action brought against defendant membership organization and employees who owned and supervised a child play area for its members after plaintiff's child was touched inappropriately by other children while under defendants' care -- Trial court abused its discretion by dismissing loss of filial consortium and breach of contract claims with prejudice following filing of second amended complaint where breach of contract claim had not been raised in prior complaints and loss of consortium claim had not been challenged in defendants' prior motions to dismiss -- Amendment of those claims would not prejudice defendants and would not be futile -- Breach of fiduciary duty -- No error in dismissing breach of fiduciary claims with prejudice -- Any amendment would be futile where plaintiffs cannot establish that defendants owed them a fiduciary duty -- No fiduciary duty exists between an individual who is paid to watch a child and that child's parent -- Although plaintiffs unquestionably trusted defendants to watch their child in their absence, plaintiffs cannot establish that defendants held any unique expertise or superior knowledge of how to watch a child that was offered as advice, counsel, or protection to plaintiffs -- Intentional infliction of emotional distress -- No error in dismissing IIED claims with prejudice -- Allegation that defendants intentionally and recklessly left plaintiff's young daughter in the unsupervised company of two older boys with a known propensity for inappropriate sexual conduct with young girls was insufficient to allege claim of IIED because conduct was not directed at plaintiffs and plaintiffs were not present when incident occurred -- With regard to claim premised on defendants' post-incident conduct of questioning legitimacy of plaintiff's daughter's account, such actions do not meet the outrageous conduct necessary for an IIED claim -- Negligent infliction of emotional distress -- Impact rule -- Trial court did not err by dismissing IIED claims with prejudice based on determination that they were barred by impact rule because plaintiffs were not involved in the event causing the negligent injury to another -- Court rejects argument that plaintiffs were sufficiently “involved” because they arrived in the “immediate aftermath” of the incident where, although plaintiffs were nearby when the incident occurred, they were unaware of the incident until they returned home later that day
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Rideshare company -- Immunity -- Fraudulent misrepresentation -- Negligent misrepresentation -- Action brought by plaintiff assaulted by rideshare driver alleging that defendant rideshare company's website made false or misleading safety representations on which plaintiff relied -- Trial court did not err by dismissing complaint based on finding that section 627.748(18) provided defendant with immunity against plaintiff's claims -- Discussion of section 627.748(18) -- Court rejects argument that subsection (18) only bars traditional vicarious liability claims -- While subsection is titled “vicarious liability,” the text of statute makes clear that the immunity conferred is much broader than traditional vicarious liability and applies to any claim based upon a rideshare company “owning, operating, or maintaining” its network, or “being” affiliated with the driver -- Subsection (18) immunity also extends to any claim for harm which “results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of a motor vehicle” while the driver is logged into the platform -- Plaintiff's claims fall within subsection's broad scope of immunity -- Court rejects argument that immunity does not apply because complaint alleges “negligence under this section” as that phrase is used in subsection (18)(a)1. -- Phrase means “negligence under section 627.748” which plainly means a negligent failure to meet the statute's requirements, not negligence related to the defendant's operation of its digital network -- Subsection (18) immunity is not a traditional affirmative defense and is properly applied at motion to dismiss stage
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Wrongful death -- Workers' compensation immunity -- Applicable law -- Summary judgment -- Appeals -- Non-final orders -- Appellate court lacks jurisdiction over appeal of order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment contending that Minnesota law applied to defendant's immunity defense where order did not specifically state that workers' compensation immunity was not available to defendant as a matter of law -- Appellate court has jurisdiction to review second order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff based on determination that Florida law applied where order's nature, character, and legal effect determined that defendant is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law -- Trial court properly applied precedent adopting significant relationship test when determining applicable state law -- Order granting summary judgment affirmed
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal Law Headnotes (Jump to Civil Law Headnotes)

THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Criminal law -- Competency of defendant -- Civil commitment -- Involuntary treatment -- Trial court did not err by authorizing Department of Children and Families to involuntarily administer psychotropic medication to defendant, a forensic client who was committed to a state hospital pursuant to chapter 916 -- Trial court's order expressly reflects consideration of the required statutory factors set forth in section 916.107(3) and record contains competent substantial evidence for trial court's findings -- Court rejects argument that, because trial court did not explicitly find that defendant was a danger to himself or others, trial court was required to conduct four-factor analysis prescribed by U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sell v. U.S. -- Sell analysis was not required where trial court expressly found, and record established, that defendant was clinically incompetent to make his own treatment decisions -- Furthermore, record contains sufficient evidence of dangerousness that independently supports trial court's order, even in absence of an explicit written finding -- Trial court was not required to credit defendant's preferred alternative treatment over the uncontroverted judgment of defendant's treating provider
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Murder -- Death penalty -- Counsel -- Appointed -- Co-counsel -- Attorney's fees -- Trial court departed from essential requirements of law, resulting in irreparable harm, by appointing private, second chair co-counsel to handle penalty phase of death penalty trial and ordering Justice Administrative Commission to pay co-counsel's attorney's fees where defendant was already represented by privately retained and paid attorney -- In case at issue, in order for defendant to be eligible for court-appointed private counsel to represent him in penalty phase, defendant must terminate lead private counsel of choice who has maintained his defense since 2020 -- Question certified: whether section 27.51(2), Florida Statutes (2022), prohibits hybrid representation by court-appointed and privately-retained counsels such that a trial court has no discretion to appoint private co-counsel for a defendant who is facing the death penalty and has one privately retained counsel but cannot afford a second counsel?
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Offense committed by juvenile -- Sentencing -- Resentencing -- Considerations -- Trial court did not err by admitting and considering defendant's prison disciplinary records at resentencing hearing -- Disciplinary reports are proper sources of evidence used by the trial court in its discretion when determining defendant's punishment -- Court rejects argument that consideration of conduct described in disciplinary reports violated defendant's due process rights because he was never arrested or convicted for the conduct alleged -- Defendant's behavior in prison is highly relevant when assessing defendant's potential for rehabilitation -- Conflict certified
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Search and seizure -- Residence -- Warrant -- Exceptions -- Good faith -- Trial court erred in denying motion to suppress statements of defendant, rooster paraphernalia, and other documents related to cockfighting and animal cruelty charges where detective entered defendant's fenced property without a search warrant and without reasonable reliance on an alleged federal search warrant which the detective had not seen and which state did not produce at hearing on defendant's motion to suppress -- Good faith exception to warrant requirement did not apply when warrant and supporting affidavit were not in the record, and no other exceptions to warrant requirement applied
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Correction -- Illegal sentence -- Prison Releasee Reoffender -- Eligibility -- Determination by judge rather than jury -- No error in denying rule 3.800(a) motion alleging that PRR statute was unconstitutional both facially and as applied under Apprendi and its progeny because under the statute's language, a judge rather than a jury makes the finding exposing a defendant to a minimum mandatory sentence -- Discussion of rule 3.800(a) and the meaning of “illegal sentence” -- Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle for raising a claim of error under Apprendi and its progeny, including Alleyne, because such claims are subject to harmless error review while an “illegal sentence” is one that cannot possibly be imposed under the law -- In so holding, the court recedes from its decision in Plott v. State
VIEW OPINION (login required)