17 November

Sticky

How to Factor a Postoffer Settlement into a Proposal for Settlement Analysis

A plaintiff may serve a proposal for settlement (a/k/a offer of judgment) to create a mechanism to recover attorney's fees as the prevailing party. When it comes to proposals for settlement served by the plaintiff on the defendant, Florida Statute s. 768.79 provides: (b) If a plaintiff serves an offer which is not accepted by the defendant, and if the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25 percent more than the amount of the offer, the plaintiff shall be awarded reasonable costs, including investigative expenses, and attorney's fees, calculated in accordance with the guidelines promulgated by the Supreme Court, incurred...

08 September

0 Comments

Sticky

Considerations when Enforcing or Challenging Restrictive Covenant

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A restrictive covenant that runs with the land places restrictions on the use of real property. As a result, “restrictive covenants must be strictly construed in favor of the free and unrestricted use of real property” and, with respect to any ambiguity in the covenant, “must be construed against the party seeking to enforce it.” Beach Towing Services, Inc. v. Sunset Land Associates, LLC, 44 Fla.L.Weekly D2195a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). These are important things to remember when enforcing or challenging a restrictive covenant. For instance, in Beach Towing Services, the plaintiff purchased property that was subject to a restrictive covenant...

22 December

0 Comments

Sticky

Arbitration Clause – Narrow or Broad

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives, Uncategorized

Arbitration, as a method of dispute resolution, is a creature of contract. If you prefer to arbitrate disputes as opposed to litigating disputes in court, then you want a properly drafted arbitration provision in your contract. If you want all disputes arising out of or relating to your contract to be arbitrated, then you want this specified in your contractual arbitration provision. Conversely, if you want certain disputes not to be arbitrated or carved-out from arbitration, you want to clarify this in the arbitration provision. The more clarity, the better, as it will avoid an issue down the road as to whether the dispute...

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...

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...

25 November

0 Comments

Sticky

Trial Court’s Responsibility is NOT to Rewrite a Contract

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

Many business disputes involve the interpretation and the application of a contract. This is because business transactions typically involve a contractual relationship governing the rights, liabilities, risks, and recourse relating to the transaction. When there is a dispute regarding the transaction, this gives rise to a breach of contract claim. It is important to understand that a trial court’s responsibility is NOT to rewrite the terms of a contract so that the risks are allocated differently. As explained: [C]ourts are ‘powerless to rewrite [a] contract to make it more reasonable or advantageous to one of the parties…or to substitute [their] judgments for...

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...

07 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Statutory Construction Subject to De Novo Standard of Appellate Review

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review

Oftentimes, courts are required to engage in statutory construction and this statutory construction becomes a driving issue in the dispute. Statutory construction is the process of a court interpreting law and then applying that law to a set of facts. For example, if your case turns on the interpretation of a particular Florida statute applied to your facts, this would be statutory construction. On appeal, the issue of statutory construction is subject to a de novo standard of appellate review. Taylor Morrison Services, Inc. v. Ecos, 163 So.3d 1286, 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). A de novo standard of review means the...

26 November

0 Comments

Sticky

Parol Evidence Rule — A Substantive Rule of Law

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

The parol evidence rule is not an evidentiary rule, but a substantive rule of law. Madsen, Sapp, Mena, Rodriguez & Co., P.A. v. Palm Beach Holdings, Inc., 899 So.2d 435, 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). It is an important substantive rule of law when it comes to cases that involve the rights, liabilities, and remedies of parties pursuant to a written agreement. The parol evidence rule precludes the admissibility of extrinsic “verbal agreements [evidence] between the parties to a written contract which are made before or at the time of execution of the contract.” Pavolini v. Williams, 915 So.2d 251, 254...