Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

January 25, 2019 | Blog Post| Introducing the New Florida Supreme Court (from an Insurance Perspective)

Ron DeSantis, the newly sworn Governor of the State of Florida, was given a unique opportunity to remake the Florida Supreme Court within his first days of office.  Three of the seven justices of the Florida Supreme Court were forced to step down in the first days of January 2019 due to mandatory retirement.  Those justices were Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince, and Fred Lewis.  These three justices generally were part of a four or five justice majority in important decisions that were widely considered to be “pro plaintiff.”

Justice Alan Lawson joined the Supreme Court at the end of 2016.  Justice Lawson more times than not joined Justices Charles Canady and Ricky Polston in dissents from decisions that either struck down limitations on, or expanded, the ability to sue or recover damages.  These three justices made up the so-called “conservative wing” of the Supreme Court.  They remain on the Florida Supreme Court, along with Justice Jorge Labarga who generally joined the outgoing justices but began to vote with the more conservative justices toward the end of 2018.

In his first weeks in office, Governor DeSantis appointed three justices to replace Justices Pariente, Quince and Lewis.  The new justices are Barbara Lagoa, Robert Luck and Carlos G. Muñiz.  Justices Lagoa and Luck were previously judges on the Third District Court of Appeal.  Justice Muñiz has not previously served as a judge.  Prior to his appointment, Justice Muñiz served as general counsel for the U.S. Department of Education.  He previously served as deputy attorney general and chief of staff to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.  He also served as deputy general counsel in the Office of Governor Jeb Bush.

With the recent appointments, the seven justices of the Florida Supreme Court are: Charles Canady, Ricky Polston, Alan Lawson, Jorge Labarga, Barbara Lagoa, Robert Luck and Carlos G. Muñiz.  To better understand how these new justices change the composition of the Supreme Court, we will look at some of the recent closely divided decisions that are important from an insurance and tort perspective. 

Joyce v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co.

In Joyce v. Federated Nat’l Ins. Co., 228 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 2017), the Florida Supreme Court rejected a line of cases from the appellate courts that held that a contingency fee multiplier in statutory attorney fee awards should be awarded only in rare and exceptional circumstances.  In other words, Joyce made it easier for plaintiffs to claim and recover a multiplier on attorney fee awards.  The decision was joined by four justices.  Those justices included Justices Pariente, Labarga, Lewis, and Quince.  Three of those four have retired.  Justice Polston concurred in result only, but did not join the opinion.

Justices Canady and Lawson dissented. Both justices remain on the court.  The dissent concluded that “[t]he majority's decision points unmistakably to the need for a full re-examination of this Court's multiplier jurisprudence.”

Harvey v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

In Harvey v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 43 Fla. L. Weekly S375 (Fla. Sept. 20, 2018), the Supreme Court quashed a lower appellate court opinion in favor of Geico that reversed the denial of a motion for directed verdict in a third-party bad faith case.  The Harvey decision was written by Justice Quince, and joined by Justices Labarga, Lewis, and Pariente.  Justices Canady, Polston and Lawson dissented.  Perhaps signaling things to come, the dissent (written by Justice Canady) stated that “it is not ‘acceptable for the Court to merely say that bad faith is a jury question.  This Court should set forth ‘logical, objective’ rules for bad faith.’” 

Tiara Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

In Tiara Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., 110 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2013), the Florida Supreme Court held that the economic loss rule only applies only in the products liability context.  This was a 5-2 decision.  The majority included justices Pariente, Quince, Labarga, Lewis and Perry.  Justice Perry later was replaced by Justice Lawson.  Justices Canady and Polston dissented.

N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Kalitan

In N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Kalitan, 219 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 2017), the Florida Supreme Court held that statutory caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice actions were unconstitutional.  This was a four justice majority opinion, which included Justices Pariente, Quince, Lewis and Labarga.  Justices Canady, Polston and Lawson dissented.

Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co.

Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So. 3d 91 (Fla. 2011) loosened the requirements for class certification.   The opinion was joined by Justices Lewis, Pariente, Labarga, and Perry.  Justices Canady, Polston and Quine dissented.  In a later case addressing similar issues, Justices Canady and Polston dissented, arguing that Florida’ jurisprudence in this area should adhere to the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011).  See  Soper v. Tire Kingdom, Inc., 124 So. 3d 804, 806 (Fla. 2013).

Castellanos v. Next Door Co.

In Castellanos v. Next Door Co., 192 So. 3d 431 (Fla. 2016), the Florida Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a statute intended to limit attorney’s fees in worker’s compensation cases.  The majority included justices Lewis, Pariente, Labarga, Quince and Perry (since replaced by Justice Lawson).  Justices Canady and Polston dissented.

These cases present a sampling of recent insurance and tort decisions that have helped give Florida its reputation as a tough venue for insurance companies and defendants.  The newly appointed justices each were heralded by industry groups that advocate for business and insurance friendly reforms.  Insurance companies, corporations and attorneys will be watching the new Supreme Court closely to see how the new court addresses the issues discussed above as well as other hotly contested issues that soon will be before the Court.

Matthew J. Lavisky | PARTNER

Extra-Contractual, First-Party Coverage and Third-Party Coverage

(813) 281-1900 | TAMPA

July 09, 2019 Blog PostSUBRO IN SECONDS | VLOG 3

The trucking industry has experienced considerable growth in recent years.  Trucking and transportation needs are expected to continue for the foreseeable future and this may lead to an increase in the volume of damaged cargo claims...

Read More »
July 08, 2019 Blog PostAmazon is subject to liability as "Seller," rules the Third Circuit

The Third Circuit issued a groundbreaking opinion in Oberdorf v. Amazon.Com, 2019 WL 2849153, that may have a significant impact on the way Amazon conducts business. For the first time, a U.S. Court of Appeals has found Amazon is a “Seller” and therefore potentially liable for defective products purchased on its website. The Third Circuit diverged from the Fourth and Sixth Circuits which has previously found Amazon should not be subjected to liability...

Read More »
May 30, 2019 Blog PostShould Amazon be Liable for Products Sold in its Marketplace?

Amazon, the largest e-commerce website in the world and a member of the “Big Four” has repeatedly, and successfully, argued that the company is not liable for harm caused by the defective products that are sold by third parties on its website. Most recently, Amazon avoided potential liability arising from a house fire caused by a defective headlamp...

Read More »
May 08, 2019 Blog PostSUBRO IN SECONDS | VLOG 2

In the landlord/tenant context, the question of who is an insured under the applicable policy may not always be clear. Watch as Subrogation Partner Aaron Jacobs revisits subrogation in the landlord/tenant context on this episode of Subro in Seconds...

Read More »
April 29, 2019 Blog PostKNOW YOUR LEASE: FLORIDA'S 3RD DISTRICT REVISITS SUBROGATION IN THE CONTEXT OF LANDLORD/TENANT LEASES

Historically, a tenant who pays towards its landlord’s insurance premiums, pursuant to the terms of the lease, is generally considered a “co-insured” under the landlord’s policy.  See Lumber Mutual Insurance Co. v. Zoltek Corp., 647 N.E.2d 395 (Mass. 1995). However, a Florida court recently reviewed a lease with such a provision and came to an opposite conclusion.  Zurich American Insurance Company v. Puccini, LLC, 2019 WL 454222 (Fla. 3d DCA February 4, 2019).

Read More »
April 17, 2019 Blog PostNotre Dame and Handling Tragic Losses

Imagine you just received an email, subject line “New Assignment – April 15 2019 loss – Paris France.” You open the email and learn that you will be assisting in the rebuilding of Notre Dame.

Read More »
February 28, 2019 Blog PostSubro in Seconds | Vlog 1

Aaron Jacobs recaps the latest in the world of Subrogation. In this episode, he discusses a recent Pennsylvania case decision that highlights difficulties associated with identifying liable parties in pipe freeze cases...

Read More »
February 18, 2019 Blog PostDiversity For Jurisdictional Purposes In Federal Litigation

Recently, I was speaking with a client, and we were discussing some of the unique issues subrogation professionals face on a regular basis. He stated that one of the things that new recovery adjusters are rarely familiar with is the concept of “diversity” for jurisdictional purposes in federal court litigation.

Read More »
November 09, 2017 Blog PostDon't Wreck Your Carmack Claim: Requirements for the Written Notice of Claim

Carmack claims are unique animals.  Carmack provides a shipper—or its subrogating insurance company—with the sole remedy for damages sustained when goods are shipped between states.  As the sole remedy, it’s imperative that a claimant strictly comply with Carmack’s notice of claim requirements and any additional notice requirements outlined in the bill of lading.  As subrogation professionals, when a cargo claim comes in, the bill of lading should be the first document reviewed to determine what needs to be done—in addition to the five items listed below—to provide proper notice of the claim to the carrier.  Failure to file proper written notice will bar the claim. 

Read More »
September 25, 2017 Blog PostA Primer on Florida's "25 Percent Rule" for Roof Repair/Replacement

The 2014 Florida Existing Building Code (the “Code”) contains what is conventionally called the “25 percent rule” (the “Rule”). The Rule applies to roof repair of any commercial or residential building.  In a nutshell, the Rule states that if more than 25 percent of a roof or section of a roof is “repaired, replaced, or recovered” then the “entire roofing system” or “roof section” must be brought up to code.  Obviously, the Rule is of extreme importance for Florida Irma property claims. Here is the text of the Rule:

Read More »
September 21, 2017 Blog PostThe Rule of Sevens: Evaluating Claims Involving a Child

As subrogation professionals, we may be tasked with evaluating property loss claims where a child caused or contributed to the property damage.  For example, is a child playing with matches or a lighter liable for a fire loss?  Or, is a child liable for driving a vehicle into the neighbor’s home? In some instances, a parent may be held liable for the child’s acts.   As more fully set forth below, when evaluating a claim involving a child, it is important to evaluate the age and capacity of the at-fault party, and to be familiar with state specific statutes regarding parental liability. 

Read More »
September 01, 2017 Blog PostHurricane Hindsight is 20/20

It took years of depositions and other discovery to realize that that most of my 2004-2005 hurricane condominium association claims were much simpler to defend than I thought.   The center of gravity of these claims was the proper calculation of Actual Cash Value (ACV).

Read More »
August 29, 2017 Blog PostThe Common Interest Doctrine: Maintaining Confidentiality

While confidentiality is usually destroyed when communications between an attorney and client take place in the presence of a third party or when work product is shared with others, those communications can remain protected if the common interest doctrine applies.

Read More »
August 23, 2017 Blog Post"It's Not Old, It's A Classic!": Risk in Aging Aircraft with GARA Protecting Manufacturers

The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (“GARA”) was a byproduct of aging aircraft, rising costs, and tort liability in the United States.  Congress was concerned that aircraft manufacturers were being devastated by liability costs for accidents occurring long after the planes left the manufacturer.  These liability costs drove up the price for aircraft beyond what the market would bear, and general aviation experienced a sharp decline.  The General Aviation Manufacturers Association reports the total U.S.-manufactured general aviation airplane shipments went from a high of 17,811 in 1978 to a low of 929 in 1994.  As a result many manufacturers stopped making certain model aircraft, including Cessna which ceased production of all piston aircraft in 1986. 

Read More »
August 15, 2017 Blog PostThe ABC's of ACV in Subrogation Claims

Oftentimes, during the course of a subrogation claim, third-party liability adjusters will refuse to pay the full amount of the “Repair Cost Value” (“RCV”) of the damages demanded, and contend that they only owe “Actual Cash Value” (“ACV”), regardless of the amount paid in the underlying first party property claim adjustment.   Oftentimes, this position is not necessarily predicated on a specific legal doctrine or theory, but rather a general “understanding” that is commonly used in the insurance context.   The true measure of damages, in the legal context, is always dictated by state law. 

Read More »
July 18, 2017 Blog PostSubrogation Following a Hurricane is All Hands on Deck

Hurricane season began June 1 st, and runs through November 30th.   However, we are about 30 days from approaching the peak of hurricane season, when the season becomes its most active.  Weather predictors are predicting an above-average number of storms this year, with 14 expected named storms.  As anyone who has worked “CAT” claims knows, when a hurricane hits, it’s “all hands on deck.”  This is true for subrogation professionals, as well.  There is a significant increase in the number of claims that must be triaged, with a goal of finding any claims that might have subrogation potential. 

Read More »
November 16, 2015 Blog PostWest Virginia Supreme Court Allows Landlord's Subrogation against Tenant

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals recently opened the door further for a landlord’s insurer subrogating against a tenant for damages to the landlord’s property.

Read More »
October 13, 2014 Blog PostIs Texas Following Florida's Lead On Changing The Economic Loss Rule?

Practicing in both Florida and Texas I have seen the Economic Loss Rule evolve over the years, and its direct impact on the recovery potential for our subrogation claims appears to be moving in a positive direction. Recently, the Texas Supreme Court held in a per curium opinion in Chapman Custom Homes, Inc. v. Dallas Plumbing Co., 2014 WL 4116839 (Tex. Aug. 22, 2014), that a claimant can now bring a tort claim (negligence, in this case) against a party, as well as a breach of contract claim. In doing so, the Court applied ...

Read More »
Key Points