14 October

Sticky

Arbitration is an Appealable Non-Final Order

in Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

Arbitration is a creature of contract. If a contract requires arbitration that means the parties are required to arbitrate their disputes as opposed to litigate their disputes. Instead of their being a judge or jury, there will be an arbitrator. There are three considerations when determining whether a dispute is subject to arbitration: 1) Is there a valid written agreement to arbitrate (such as an arbitration provision in a contract)? 2) Is there an arbitrable issue? And 3) Has the right to arbitrate the issue or dispute been waived? Chaikin v. Parker Waichman LLP, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2165b (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) quoting Jackson v....

12 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Writ of Certiorari to Remedy Pre-Trial Discovery Order

Posted by David Adelstein

in Discovery, Standard of Review

Sometimes, a trial court issues a pre-trial order on a discovery issue that a party claims causes it irreparable harm. In this situation, the only basis to appeal the pre-trial discovery order is through a petition for writ of certiorari, as recently explained by the Second District Court of Appeal: A party seeking review of a pretrial discovery order must show that the trial court's order departed from the essential requirements of law and caused material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. Generally, certiorari is not available to review orders...

15 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Insurance Policy Construction is a Question of Law

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

I am sure you have an insurance policy...

23 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Denial of Right to Depose Material Witness

Posted by David Adelstein

in Depositions, Standard of Review

Depositions are an integral part of a dispute’s "truth seeking" discovery process. This is where parties can depose a witness under oath and explore key factual issues and parties’ positions, both from a liability and damages perspective. Certain depositions can be introduced for purposes of substantive evidence at trial. Other depositions can be used for purposes of impeachment in case a witness changes his/her position or story at trial. The significance of a deposition of a material witness in a civil case cannot be understated. If an opposing party wants to limit or prevent a deposition from moving forward, that party will...

07 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Designating a Representative(s) to Serve as the Corporate Representative for Deposition

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

Corporate representative depositions play an important role in the discovery of any dispute involving a corporate party. A corporate representative deposition requires the corporate representative to speak on behalf of the company – they are not speaking based on their personal knowledge, but as to the company’s position regarding designated topics. In fact, the designated corporate representative does not have to have the most knowledge about a particular topic to be the representative. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.310(b)(6). See also Sybac Solar, GMBH v. 6th Street Solar Energy park of Gainesville, LLC, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D771a (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (“The...

31 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Punitive Damages for Business Torts

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

Punitive damages can be warranted in business torts, although you are dealing with a much tougher threshold. Typically, the misconduct warranting the punitive damages needs to be intentional, i.e., the defendant had knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and its high probability of damage and engaged in the misconduct anyway. See Fla. Stat. 768.72. This is because “‘the purpose of punitive damages is not to further compensate the plaintiff, but to punish the defendant for the wrongful conduct and to deter similar misconduct by it and other actors in the future.'” See Bistline v. Rogers, 42 Fla. L. Weekly...

06 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Insurance Coverage Disputes where the Focus is the Policy Language

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review

Insurance coverage disputes are fairly common between an insured and his/her/its insurer. These are important disputes to an insured, particularly when they have been damaged and their insurer refuses to defend them from a third-party claim or otherwise denies coverage. An insured never wants to be in this position—understandably so. On the other hand, an insurance policy is not designed to cover every single risk under the sun as there are exclusions identified in policies for risks or perils that are not covered. This ultimately means an insured needs to have an appreciation of those risks or perils not covered...

24 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Appealing Trial Court’s Interpretation of Contract

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

Many disputes turn on the interpretation of a contract, contractual term, or written document. When the trial court rules on the interpretation, there will typically be a party that disagrees with the court’s interpretation. In these instances, this party will appeal the trial court’s interpretation. There is a value to appeal because the appellate standard of review is de novo meaning the appellate court will review the trial court’s record anew without giving deference to the trial court’s interpretation. The interpretation of a written contract is a question of law and the appellate court construes the contract under a de novo...

09 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Asserting Punitive Damages (or Appealing the Decision to Allow for Punitive Damages)

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

So, you are interested in pursuing punitive damages. Then you MUST comply with the requirements of Florida Statute s. 768.72. This statute provides in relevant part: (1) In any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages. The claimant may move to amend her or his complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages as allowed by the rules of civil procedure. The rules of civil procedure shall be liberally construed so...

30 May

0 Comments

Sticky

“Other Products” Evidence to Support Alternate Causation Theory

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence, Standard of Review

The recent case of Arizona Chemical Company, LLC v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1213a (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) is a case I discussed regarding lost profit damages. Check out that article here. But, this case also raised an interesting trial and appellate issue involving “other products” evidence to support an alternate causation argument, such as when a specific product or manufactured component fails. This case involved a manufacturer of a specific brand of carpet suing the manufacturer of resin that was used in manufacturing the failed carpet brand. The carpet manufacturer claimed that the resin failure caused an...