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.

Insurance -- Commercial automobile -- Coverage -- Cancellation of policy -- Effective date -- Breach of contract action brought against insurer by plaintiffs who were struck by the insured vehicle -- Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs based on determination that policy was in effect at time of accident because insurer had not yet received insured's notice of cancellation which requested that policy be cancelled on a date prior to the accident -- Policy provision requiring insured to provide “advance written notice” of cancellation to insurer did not mean that insured's request for cancellation could not have taken effect prior to date on which notice was received -- Where a policy provision states that an insured may cancel by providing “advance written notice of the cancellation,” the insurer is at liberty to honor the insured's requested date of cancellation
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Post-loss obligations -- Examination under oath -- Failure to comply -- Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer based on finding that insured breached policy by failing to submit to examination under oath where factual issue remained regarding whether insured cooperated to some degree or provided explanation for not proceeding with examination in presence of only the insurer's videographer and court reporter, without the presence of the insured's videographer and court reporter
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Windstorm loss -- Hail -- Hurricane deductible -- Applicability -- No error in granting summary judgment in favor of insured finding that hurricane deductible did not apply to loss caused by a hailstorm despite fact that loss occurred during a “hurricane occurrence,” which the policy defined as a time period ending 72 hours following the termination of the last hurricane watch or warning issued for any part of the state -- Because hailstorm was a local weather event with no connection to the hurricane, loss was not “caused by” a “hurricane occurrence” and deductible did not apply -- Hurricane deductible endorsement providing that insurer would pay loss exceeding hurricane deductible in the event of a windstorm loss “caused by” a “hurricane occurrence” cannot be reasonably read to mean that any windstorm loss that occurs during a “hurricane occurrence” will incur hurricane deductible -- Such a reading would give no meaningful effect to endorsement's causation element -- Most reasonable reading of endorsement is to collapse “hurricane occurrence” into the term “hurricane” -- Reliance on section 627.4025 to interpret meaning of endorsement is unnecessary where endorsement does not contain a gap or any reference to the statute, and does not allow multiple reasonable interpretations -- Court rejects public policy argument asserting that court's interpretation would jeopardize availability and affordability of hurricane coverage within state
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Liens -- Construction -- Transfer of lien to bond -- Foreclosure -- Limitation of actions -- Appeals -- Certiorari -- Action involving an original claim of lien and amended claim of lien, both of which were transferred to bond and noticed for contest -- Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law in determining that plaintiff's construction lien had been automatically extinguished as a matter of law because plaintiff had failed to bring claim against surety on bond within sixty days of notice of contest related to amended claim of lien -- Discussion of sections 713.22 and 713.24 -- Trial court properly applied section 713.24(4) where, although original claim of lien was transferred to bond and noticed for contest prior to litigation, plaintiff's amended claim of lien was undisputedly transferred to bond and noticed for contest during litigation -- Upon recording of notice of contest of the transferred amended claim of lien, section 713.22(2) operated to shorten time for plaintiff to bring claim against the bond to sixty days -- Court rejects argument that transfer of amended claim of lien was irrelevant because original claim of lien had already been transferred -- Fact that notices of contest were filed after the claims of lien had been transferred to bond did not render the notices invalid
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Contracts -- Arbitration -- Arbitrable issues -- Non-signatory -- Equitable estoppel -- Action brought by seller against buyer's contractors for litter and trespass alleging that contractors used seller's land as a dump site -- No error in denying defendant contractors' motion to compel arbitration pursuant to arbitration clause contained in contract between seller and buyer where arbitration clause only provided for arbitration of “any controversy or claim between buyer and seller or seller against buyer or its surety,” and defendants were not the seller, buyer, or buyer's surety -- Defendants were not entitled to invoke arbitration clause and compel arbitration under theory of equitable estoppel -- Equitable estoppel cannot be used to compel arbitration of claims that the contracting parties themselves never agreed to arbitrate
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Premises liability -- Negligent security -- Criminal attack -- Action against owner of apartment complex and property manager by plaintiff who was attacked by unknown assailant positioned outside property at time of the incident on a public street that was not controlled by defendants -- Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether assailant was in fact off the premises and failed to present any evidence suggesting that defendants created a dangerous condition that would expand their zone of foreseeable risk outside of the property limits -- Moreover, record reflects that armed security guards were actively patrolling the property at time of incident and that operable security cameras were positioned throughout the apartment complex, and plaintiff presented no evidence illustrating that defendants failed to have adequate security measures in place to safeguard or prevent the shooting in which plaintiff was injured -- Finally, trial court found that uncontroverted facts and record evidence established that plaintiff was victim of personal, targeted attack by unknown assailant and, accordingly, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether shooting was foreseeable
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Premises liability -- Supermarkets -- Fleeing shoplifters -- Duty -- Foreseeable zone of risk -- Evidence -- Internal policies -- Action stemming from injuries plaintiff suffered when he was struck by a car driven by fleeing shoplifter -- No error in entering summary judgment in favor of defendant based on determination that defendant did not create a reasonably foreseeable zone of risk by its employees' actions of asking to see shoplifter's receipt, calling out for police, and following shoplifter outside -- A store has no duty to protect customers from a fleeing shoplifter absent special circumstances indicating danger before the shoplifter flees -- Employee's action of placing her hand on shoplifter's cart, asking for a correct receipt, or picking up an item inside the cart did not create a reasonably foreseeable zone of risk where actions were part of employee's job duties, and actions occurred before shoplifter displayed any aggression or indication he would flee -- Other employees' actions of calling out for police and following shoplifter outside after shoplifter attempted to flee did not create a foreseeable zone of risk -- Zone of risk was already present when shoplifter violently attempted to flee, and there was no indication that calling out for police after shoplifter became violent enlarged the zone of risk -- Simply exiting the store and standing on sidewalk did not foreseeably enlarge zone of risk -- Court rejects argument that defendant's policies and procedures were evidence that “escalating an encounter with a shoplifter” creates a foreseeable zone of risk -- While internal policies might sometimes be relevant when a jury decides compliance with proper standard of care in a negligence case, a single party's internal policies are not themselves evidence that an alleged tortfeasor's conduct creates a reasonably foreseeable zone of risk -- Even if court were to consider defendant's internal policies, the policies would not change disposition because the policies go above and beyond what is merely reasonable and foreseeable and do not themselves evidence a legal duty to protect plaintiff -- Likewise, testimony of defendant's employees which was based on defendant's policies did not establish a legal duty
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 -- Robbery -- Murder -- Sentencing -- Offense committed by juvenile -- Resentencing -- Absence of defendant -- Because trial court had no discretion but to impose original sentence based upon decisional law at time of resentencing, imposition of sentence without defendant's presence and without full sentencing hearing did not result in due process violation -- Although defendant was entitled to resentencing after trial court granted his rule 3.850 based upon Florida Supreme Court's decision in Atwell v. State, after subsequent decisions were issued in State v. Michel and Franklin v. State, defendant's original sentence of life in prison with possibility of parole was, in fact, constitutional and resentencing to original sentence was purely ministerial act
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Search and seizure -- Residence -- Knock and announce -- Inevitable discovery -- No error in granting motion to suppress evidence seized following the forced entry into defendant's home to execute search warrant based on determination that officers failed to comply with knock-and-announce statute -- Where officers knock, announce their authority and purpose, and then enter with such haste that the occupant does not have a reasonable opportunity to respond, the search violates section 933.09 -- Competent, substantial evidence supported trial court's conclusion that, despite officers' knocking on door and identifying themselves as police, neither defendant nor other occupants had time to respond to the door after officers announced that they had authority to enter pursuant to search warrant -- U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hudson v. Michigan did not overrule Florida Supreme Court's decision in Benefield v. State, which held that the exclusionary rule applies to violations of knock-and-announce statute -- Inevitable discovery doctrine is not applicable in cases involving violations of knock-and-announce statute -- Question certified: Whether evidence obtained under a valid search warrant must be suppressed to remedy a violation of the knock-and-announce requirement of section 933.09, Florida Statutes?
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Search and seizure -- Residence -- Curtilage -- Knock and talk -- Plain view -- Trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress firearm discovered after officers entered into defendant's enclosed front porch and home without a warrant upon seeing a rifle on the front porch with the aid of a flashlight -- Defendant's enclosed front porch, which had been encased with opaque black vinyl and furnished and used like an interior room, was within home's curtilage and was a constitutionally protected area for which a warrant was required to enter -- Use of a flashlight to look inside the enclosed porch after no one responded to officers' knocks was impermissible under the circumstances -- Because the rifle was not plainly viewed from the officers' vantage point outside of the enclosed porch, officers' use of a flashlight to look past the opaque screen constituted an unlawful intrusion into a constitutionally protected area -- Officers' license to engage in a “knock and talk” ended when no one answered the door where officers knocked on porch door solely to find witnesses to murder which occurred next door -- No exigent circumstances or other warrant exceptions existed that would justify use of flashlight to peer into enclosed porch and enter home
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Use of two-way communications device to facilitate or further felony -- Evidence -- Statements of defendant -- Government employees -- Internal investigations -- Convictions arising from assistant principal's unauthorized use of school district's computer system to access student accounts for purposes of casting fraudulent votes in homecoming elections -- No error in denying defendant's motion to suppress statements she made to investigator appointed by school district during a formal interview at school district's office -- Discussion of U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Garrity v. New Jersey -- Before a government employee is entitled to immunity for incriminatory statements provided to her employer, the employee must show that employee was threatened with an adverse employment action if he or she failed to answer the employer's questions -- It is not enough that defendant subjectively believed that she would suffer adverse employment action if she refused to answer investigator's questions -- Defendant's subjective belief that she would suffer adverse consequences was not objectively reasonable where, although defendant was told that the school district expected administrators to cooperate with investigations, she was never told that she had to answer investigator's questions or that she would be subject to a sanction for failing to do so -- Furthermore, defendant's interactions with investigator showed that she did not feel compelled to answer investigator's questions
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Wiretapping -- Intercepted communications -- Error to deny motion to dismiss wiretapping charges under section 934.03(1)(a) where defendant recorded telephone conversations with deputy sheriffs acting in their official capacity and emailed the audio recordings to sheriff's office to report purported officer misconduct -- Because deputies did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they spoke with defendant over the phone in their official capacities as law enforcement officers regarding public business, the recordings did not fall within definition of “oral communication” in section 934.02(2), Florida Statutes, (2020) -- It was undisputed that all conversations concerned matters of public business, occurred while deputies were on duty, and involved phones utilized for work purposes -- No error in denying motion to dismiss charges for battery on law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence, where deputies were executing arrest warrants and defendant did not demonstrate that deputies were not acting in good faith
VIEW OPINION (login required)