11 July

Sticky

Discussion on the Difference Between Replacement Cost Value and Fair Market Value

This post discusses an interesting, but fairly complex decision dealing with the difference between replacement cost value and fair market value (actual cost value). The decision also discusses the set-off when suing a defendant after being paid the replacement cost value limit under the policy. In Five Solas, Inc. v. Ram Realty Services, LLC, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1255a (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), a brick wall collapsed falling on a neighboring building damaging the building and rendering it untenantable. The owner of the building had a replacement cost value property insurance policy with a liability limit and deductible. The insurer paid the liability limit...

26 June

0 Comments

Sticky

FINANCIAL DISCOVERY FROM EXPERT WITNESSES TO SHOW BIAS

Posted by David Adelstein

in Discovery

It is not uncommon for experts to work with the same law firm on numerous cases. Does this mean an expert can be subjected to discovery to produce a list of cases and money received (financial records) from the law firm on unrelated matters to show the expert is biased? The Third District Court of Appeals held that a party cannot pursue such documentation without a showing “of the most unusual or compelling circumstances,” a potentially challenging showing. See Hidalgo v. Citizens Property Ins. Corp., 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1437a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). This does not mean a party cannot seek discovery...

20 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Venue for Defamatory Social Media Post

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A defamatory social media post can lead to…you guessed it…a defamation claim asserted against the author of the post. Think about this the next time you post something on social media for the world to see. Once you post something on social media, there are many persons that receive and read the post. A question becomes where is the right venue to sue someone for a defamatory social media posting. The recent decision in Lowery v. McBee, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1337b (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) answered this question. In this case, the plaintiff sued the defendant for posting a defamatory post on...

12 June

0 Comments

Sticky

The Bench Trial and Competent Substantial Evidence

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

In another posting, I discussed the doctrine referred to as the anticipatory repudiation of a contract. The anticipatory repudiation of a contract amounts to a breach of the contract as a party is prospectively repudiating their obligations in the contract. However, for purposes this article, that same case explains the difficulty in overturning a judgment from a non-jury (or bench) trial. This is because of the competent substantial evidence burden where a trial court will be affirmed if there is competent substantial evidence. If you are appealing a judgment from a bench trial, you are dealing with a harder standard or...

06 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Demonstrating the Difficult Burden in PIERCING the Corporate Veil

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Trying to pierce the corporate veil to go after principals/owners/members is extremely difficult. Although parties make a run at such arguments, this by no means diminishes the difficulty of actually prevailing on the arguments. In order to pierce the corporate a veil, a party has to prove three elements: (1) the person dominated and controlled the company to such an extent that the company had no existence independence of the person, and the company was the mere instrumentality or alter-ego of the person; (2) the person used the company’s corporate form fraudulently or for an improper purpose; and (3) the person’s fraudulent or improper...

30 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Vicarious Liability and the Going and Coming Rule

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

When is an employer vicariously liable to a third-party for the conduct of its employees? “In Florida, an employer is vicariously liable for an employee's tortious conduct where the conduct occurs within the scope of the employment.” An employee's “[c]onduct is within the scope of employment if it occurs substantially within authorized time and space limits, and it is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master.” Indoneisia Peterson v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1248a (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (internal citations omitted). Is an employer liable for conduct of its employees driving to and from work? The answer...

23 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Accurate Jury Instructions are Important

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Jury Instructions

Accurate jury instructions that are read to a jury are important. This is because accurate jury instructions help a jury properly resolve issues important to the case. “A decision to give or withhold a jury instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Vainberg v. Avatar Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 46 Fla. L.Weekly D1141d (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). In Vainberg, the trial judge refused to give a jury instruction requested by the plaintiff. The case involved a property insurance dispute where the insurer, pursuant to the terms of the property insurance policy, elected to perform the repairs. After the insurer’s contractor...

16 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Courts are not Here to Rewrite Bargained for Contractual Provisions

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

“Courts cannot disregard agreed-upon, contractual provisions between parties. To do so would be to strike the…[contractual] obligations from the contract ‘by way of judicial fiat and the bargained-for contractual terms would be rendered surplusage.’” Peoples Trust Ins. Co. v. Amaro, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1025a (3d DCA 2021). Courts are not here to rewrite negotiated contracts between the parties when, after-the-fact, one of the parties realizes they don’t like the terms of the contract. Doing so would be rendering certain terms or language as surplusage or unilaterally striking terms that had been bargained. Frankly, that would not be fair and defeat the very...

08 May

0 Comments

Sticky

A Defamation Claim of a Public Figure

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Stating a defamation claim of a public figure is different and more rigorous than stating a defamation claim of a private figure. Florida employs a two-step process to determine if a person is a public figure: “First, the court must determine whether there is a public controversy. Second, the court must…determine whether the plaintiff played a sufficiently central role in the instant controversy to be considered a public figure for purposes of that controversy.” Reardon v. WPLG, LLC, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D836a, n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (internal quotations and citations omitted). To assert a claim for defamation of a public figure, a...

02 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Civil Theft has a Rigorous Burden of Proof

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Florida has a cause of action known as civil theft. It is a statutory cause of action under Florida Statute s. 772.11 (referenced at the bottom of this article) that, just like criminal theft, requires a party to prove criminal intent with clear and convincing evidence. See Bailey v. Covington, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D776a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“To establish a claim for civil theft, a party must prove 1) that a conversion has taken place and 2) that the accused party acted with criminal intent. Such intent must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”) (internal citation omitted). See also United...