30 June

Sticky

Striking an Affirmative Defense

I recently discussed the property insurance coverage dispute, American Integrity Insurance Company v. Estrada, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1639a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), which deals with an insured’s forfeiture of post-loss policy obligations in a property insurance policy. Yet, in a different context, this case deals with a trial court striking a defendant's (insurer) affirmative defense and precluding the defendant (insurer) from amending its affirmative defense prior to trial. “The standard of review of an order striking an affirmative defense is abuse of discretion. An order denying a defendant’s motion to amend its affirmative defenses is also reviewed for an abuse of...

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...

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...

25 June

0 Comments

Sticky

Challenging Standard for Granting Directed Verdict

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence, Trial Perspectives

If there is a jury trial, there will be a motion for directed verdict. But, the standard for granting a motion for directed verdict is challenging; if the directed verdict is granted, an appeal will be filed arguing the trial court’s error in granting the directed verdict. James v. City of Tampa, 2016 WL 3201221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) was a personal injury action. The issue at trial was whether the plaintiff’s injuries from a car accident constituted a permanent injury (as this issue impacted damages to be awarded to the injured plaintiff). At the conclusion of all of the evidence, the...

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...

21 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Motion for Directed Verdict (or to Set Aside the Verdict) is an Important Trial Consideration

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence, Standard of Review

After the plaintiff puts on its case-in-chief, you, as the defendant, move for a directed verdict. (Check out this article too for more on directed verdicts.) The court denies the motion for a directed verdict. You put on your defense and then the case is submitted to the jury. The jury returns a verdict in favor the plaintiff. You then move to set aside the verdict (also called a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict). The trial court denies your motion and enters final judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict. You appeal the trial court’s denial of the motion for...

07 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Difference Between Lay Opinion Testimony and Expert Opinion Testimony

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence, Standard of Review

Although I have numerous blog articles regarding the appellate standard of review when it comes to the admissibility of evidence, it is important to remember that “[a] trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion; however, the trial court’s interpretation of the evidence code is reviewed de novo.” L.L. v. The State of Florida, 41 Fla.L.Weekly D854a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). In L.L., a criminal case, a police officer testified that he smelled the strong odor of marijuana from the defendant and that a plastic bag in defendant’s possession contained marijuana. The defendant objected...

27 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Prejudicial Closing Argument Could Result in Mistrial / New Trial

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

Closing argument is a very, very important part of jury trials to sum up the evidence in the context / theme of your case based on the applicable law. It is your last opportunity to talk directly to the jury about the theme of your case. Check out this article for the purpose of closing argument. While lawyers are afforded latitude in presenting closing argument, improper and prejudicial argument could result in an appellate court granting a new trial. The opposing party must, however, timely object to the improper and prejudicial argument in order to properly preserve this objection for...

16 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Witness Laying Foundation for Business Records Exception Need Not be the Person that Prepared the Business Records

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence

If you have visited this blog before, then you know the importance I place on the business records exception to the hearsay rule in civil business disputes. (Check out this article too.) Lately, the business records exception to the hearsay rule is a hot topic in mortgage foreclosure cases. In yet another foreclosure case, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, on Behalf of the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-1 v. Balkisson, 41 Fla.L.Weekly D308a (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), the trial court entered an involuntary dismissal in favor of the borrower and against the lender after sustaining...

10 February

0 Comments

Sticky

De Novo Standard of Appellate Review for Construction of Arbitration Provision

Posted by David Adelstein

in Standard of Review

Your contract contains an arbitration provision meaning you are required to arbitrate your dispute instead of litigate your dispute (in court). Nonetheless, your opponent files a lawsuit against you and you move to compel the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision in your contract. But, the trial court denies your motion to compel arbitration based on its interpretation of the arbitration provision. So, what do you do? You file an interlocutory appeal to appeal this ruling since you want to arbitrate your dispute. The appellate standard of review for the construction (interpretation) of an arbitration provision is de novo....