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.

Contracts -- Attorney's fees -- Prevailing party -- Amount -- Fees for fees -- Contractual provision providing that, should any litigation or legal proceeding be required for “the enforcement of the agreement,” the prevailing party would be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the enforcement -- Trial court erred in finding that prevailing plaintiff was entitled to attorney's fees for time spent litigating amount of fees -- Fee provision in contract was not broad enough to encompass an award of fees for fees
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Counties -- Ordinances -- Rent control -- State preemption -- Dismissal -- Attorney's fees -- Prevailing party -- Action alleging that county's rent stabilization ordinance failed to meet requirements of state-preemption exception set forth in section 125.0103(2), and seeking attorney's fees under section 57.112 -- Trial court erred in determining that section 57.112 was inapplicable to the underlying action because plaintiffs could not challenge ordinance as being “expressly preempted” when there was no specific statement of preemption in section 125.0103 at the time county sought to enact the ordinance -- Even without the appearance of either the word “preempt” or “preemption” in section 125.0103, the statutory language evinced a clear legislative intent to preempt local government from imposing a rent control ordinance unless it met certain criteria -- Plaintiffs triggered section 57.112 by challenging the ordinance as expressly preempted where, although complaint did not expressly state that ordinance was preempted, complaint alleged that county was prohibited from enacting the ordinance under section 125.0103 -- Dismissal -- Mootness -- Exceptions -- Collateral consequences -- Trial court erred by dismissing action as moot following legislature's amendment of section 125.0103 because plaintiffs' right to recover attorney's fees and costs under section 57.112, in the event they prevailed, constituted a collateral legal consequence that precluded dismissal
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure -- Amendment -- Subpoena -- Notice of issuance
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Coverage -- Concealment or fraud -- Innocent co-insured -- Summary judgment -- Action filed by insured wife after claim for fire damage was denied based on insured husband's failure to truthfully report that he caused the fire -- Trial court erred by granting wife's motion for summary judgment based on determination that she was entitled to coverage as an innocent co-insured spouse -- Discussion of joint and several coverage -- Summary judgment was improper where concealment or fraud provision of policy unambiguously required only one of the insureds to intentionally conceal or misrepresent material information in order for coverage to be denied to all insureds, and evidence presented created a genuine dispute of material fact on the issue of whether husband had violated concealment or fraud provision by intentionally concealing or misrepresenting the true cause of the fire
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Landlord-tenant -- Torts -- Premises liability -- Damages -- Emotional distress -- Impact rule -- Action filed by tenant alleging that prolonged exposure to unsafe and unsanitary conditions in residence caused significant mental anguish and emotional distress which, in turn, exacerbated tenant's preexisting heart condition and contributed substantially to tenant's cardiac arrest -- Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of landlord based on its determination that facts did not rise to level of an impact sufficient to satisfy requirements of impact rule -- Impact occurs when an outside force or substance, no matter how large or small, visible or invisible, and no matter that the effects are not immediately deleterious, touches or enters into the plaintiff's body -- Impact rule has no application when an impact or touching has occurred -- Because trial court found that there was “no doubt” that tenant had inhaled microscopic particles from raw sewage and smoke in the residence, impact rule was inapplicable
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Real property -- Sale -- Entitlement to funds -- Life estates -- Property, which was conveyed via deed to husband and wife as life tenants with the remainder interest split between wife's children from a previous marriage and a trust, sold by wife after husband's passing -- Trial court did not err in determining that widow was not entitled to undistributed proceeds from her sale of the property -- Widow, who possessed only life estate, could not sell a fee simple interest in the property where deed did not contain any language reserving her right to sell the home -- A life tenant cannot sell a greater interest than what she owns -- Court rejects argument that widow had authority to sell because she was trustee for the trust which held a remainder interest -- Even assuming widow was trustee, widow lacked authority to bind trust to sales contract because widow had a personal interest in liquidating property for her own economic gain, and a conflicting fiduciary duty to administer the trust in the interest of decedent's child, the sole trust beneficiary -- A sale involving the investment or management of trust property which is otherwise affected by a conflict between the trustee's fiduciary and personal interests is voidable by a beneficiary affected by the transaction unless sale was approved by the court or the beneficiary consented to the trustee's conduct, neither of which occurred here
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Battery -- Vicarious liability -- Arbitration -- Arbitrable issues -- Significant relationship -- Action brought against plaintiff's co-worker and employer stemming from workplace incident in which co-worker allegedly grabbed plaintiff and forcibly shoved her out of his office during a dispute concerning plaintiff's scheduled leave -- Trial court erred by granting defendants' motion to compel arbitration of claims pursuant to broad arbitration clause contained in plaintiff's physician employment agreement -- Nexus between claims and arbitration provision contained in employment agreement was insufficient to mandate arbitration where nothing in standard physician's employment contract indicated that parties intended to arbitrate tort claims; plaintiff's claims do not rely upon, or require reference to, employment agreement; and claims do not emanate from an inimitable duty created by parties' contractual relationship
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Damages -- Emotional distress -- Workers' compensation immunity -- Action alleging that plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress after workplace robbery -- Trial court erred in determining that plaintiff's employer was not entitled to workers' compensation immunity based on determination that, because plaintiff suffered no physical injury requiring medical attention, plaintiff's claim was outside statutory workers' compensation framework -- As a matter of first impression, the court holds that an employee may not file a tort claim against her employer in circuit court without first seeking a determination of whether she is entitled to workers' compensation benefits -- Claimants may not unilaterally determine that their claims are not compensable in the workers' compensation system and sue their employers
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Malicious prosecution -- Conspiracy -- Abuse of process -- Intentional infliction of emotional distress -- Appeal from order granting motion to dismiss, for failure to state a cause of action, a complaint alleging defendant, with codefendant's assistance, fabricated evidence that led court to enter temporary injunction against plaintiff, law enforcement to arrest her, and prosecutors to file an aggravated stalking information against her -- Trial court erred in dismissing malicious prosecution count on ground that plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that the voluntary dismissal of civil injunction and nolle prosequi of criminal aggravating stalking case constituted “bona fide terminations” of the earlier proceedings -- Civil conspiracy -- Trial court also erred in dismissing civil conspiracy count -- Plaintiff plausibly alleged an underlying tort, an alleged agreement, and overt acts in a nonconclusory manner by specifying that codefendant actively assisted defendant in fabricating evidence and making false reports, and purported evidence of codefendant's participation was attached to the complaint -- Trial court did not err in finding abuse of process count facially insufficient -- Allegation that defendant made a “perverted use of process” by refusing to retreat from her fabricated assertions did not adequately allege a use of process after suit was filed or an ulterior motive -- However, plaintiff should have been granted leave to amend at least one time where record did not conclusively establish that she could not in good faith allege a set of circumstances sufficient to state cause of action -- Trial court did not err in dismissing count alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress which relied solely on conduct leading to wrongful arrest -- However, dismissal should have been without prejudice
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Product liability -- Herbicide -- Amendment of complaint to add claim for punitive damages -- Action against corporate manufacturer of Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide, brought by plaintiff who attributed his diagnosis with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma to Roundup and contended that Roundup label should have contained a warning that glyphosate could cause cancer -- Trial court erred in granting motion to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages where allegations, proffer, and record evidence did not demonstrate intentional misconduct or gross negligence on part of defendant -- Although manufacturer was aware of continued reevaluation of glyphosate, record did not show that glyphosate is carcinogenic, that defendant knew it was, and that defendant intentionally sold its product without a warning label -- Further, record did not demonstrate that defendant's conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted conscious disregard or indifference to life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to its product
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Wrongful death -- Complaint -- Amendment -- Punitive damages -- Gross negligence -- Action brought against dive master, boat captain, boat owner, and tour operator arising from decedent's drowning while scuba diving on a chartered tour -- Trial court erred by granting plaintiff's motion for leave to amend to assert claim for punitive damages -- Trial court applied wrong legal standard in granting motion where it applied general, liberal pleading standard rather than heightened standard required by section 768.72 -- In applying incorrect legal standard, trial court failed to fulfill its gatekeeping role and evaluate whether evidence was sufficient to support plaintiff's allegations of gross negligence -- Error was further compounded because trial court also failed to make affirmative finding that plaintiff's proffered evidence established a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages -- Evidence -- As to boat captain and dive master, plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages -- Plaintiff's allegations that boat captain and dive master were grossly negligent for failing to use “industry standard” buddy system and allowing decedent out of their sight for four to ten minutes establish, at best, ordinary breaches of professional standards of care, not the heightened culpability required to support punitive damages claim -- Even accepting allegation that allowing decedent to dive intoxicated constituted gross negligence, evidence did not support allegation that dive master and boat captain should have known decedent was intoxicated before she went in water -- As to boat owner and tour operator, proposed amended complaint's allegations were insufficient to support punitive damages claim based on vicarious liability theory where complaint did not allege any conduct by those defendants -- By alleging that boat owner and tour operator were grossly negligent “by and through” boat captain, plaintiff relied on general common law rules of agency and vicarious liability rather than heightened standards required by section 768.72
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 -- Burglary -- Structure -- Curtilage -- Charges stemming from defendant's taking of packages placed near front door of victim's home -- Trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal -- Area from which defendant took packages constituted a porch or curtilage where area was covered by the same roof that covered the rest of the house and area was adjacent to and touching the front door and had several of the victim's belongings in it, including a “welcome” rug -- Jury trial -- Defendant was not constitutionally entitled to twelve-person jury -- Judgment -- Correction -- On remand, judgment to be amended to reflect that a jury convicted defendant of burglary of a structure rather than stating that defendant pled guilty to burglary of a dwelling
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Costs -- Prosecution costs -- The minimum “costs for the state attorney” set forth in section 938.27(8) are mandatory and must be imposed by trial court even in the absence of a request by the state -- Because state carries no burden of proof regarding minimum costs, requiring state to request those costs is unnecessary
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Trafficking in and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine -- Evidence -- Audio recordings -- Authentication -- Audio recordings can be authenticated by direct and circumstantial evidence other than by the direct testimony of a witness who participated in the calls or otherwise heard the conversations live -- Trial court did not err in admitting recorded phone calls between confidential informant and a codefendant/coconspirator although those conversations were not heard live by anyone else and neither CI nor coconspirator testified at trial -- State presented sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence at trial to make prima facie showing of the authenticity of the audio recordings, including evidence establishing identity of parties to conversation; absence of time lag between recording of calls and delivery of recordings to detective; similarity between the events that transpired and what was arranged in the recordings; and detailed explanation of circumstances surrounding the making and recording of the calls
VIEW OPINION (login required)