Essex Insurance Company v. Zota, 985 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 2008).

The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of the firm's client in this case which worked its way to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit which then certified five questions of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court. The supreme court’s thirty-page unanimous decision marked a significant victory on insurance issues critical to the surplus-lines insurance industry in Florida. The Supreme Court held, consistent with long-standing precedent, that surplus-lines insurers are not required to deliver their policies directly to the insured but may do so through the insured’s independent representative-broker.

Awadallah v. Singer, 950 So. 2d 1250 (Table) (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

This appeal arises out of the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of our client, Defendants, Jay R. Singer, D.D.S, and his professional association, Jay R. Singer, D.D.S., P.A. based on the lack of record proof of causation between Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and any alleged breach of duty of care on the part of Dr. Singer.  On appeal, Plaintiff contended that the expert affidavits she presented for the first time on rehearing should have been considered by the trial court.  She also claimed that the trial court should have continued the summary judgment hearing even though she did not file any written motion for continuance and conducted no discovery between the filing of the motion for summary judgment and the hearing on it which took place four months later.  The Fourth Distinct rejected Plaintiff's arguments and issued a per curiam affirmance of the trial court's summary final judgment.

Global Travel Marketing, Inc. v. Shea, 908 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2005).

The firm participated in this case as amicus curiae or a "friend of the court" on behalf of the Florida Defense Lawyers Association and The United States Tour Operators Association. The Florida Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement incorporated into a commercial travel contract entered into by a mother on behalf of a minor child was enforceable against the minor and the minor’s estate in a tort action arising from the contract.

Burns v. Radisson Seven Seas Cruises, Inc., 867 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

The appellate court found that dismissal of a passenger’s slip-and-fall complaint for improper venue was not error since the passenger failed to establish that the forum selection clause on the cruise ticket was unreasonable.

Lee v. Simon, 885 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

In this medical malpractice case which examined when the medical malpractice statute of limitations begins to run, the appellate court agreed a defendant doctor was entitled to summary judgment because the statute of limitations began to run when the decedent died, even though the estate’s representative failed to discover the exact identity of the doctor who gave the order to admit the decedent to the hospital. To be more precise, the plaintiff’s attorneys assumed that the reference to a Dr. Simon in the medical records referred to a Dr. Fred Simon when in fact it referred to a Dr. David Simon who was never served with a notice of intent.

Mizrahi v. North Miami Medical Center, Ltd., 761 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2000).

The firm participated in this case as amicus curiae or a "friend of the court" on behalf of the Florida League of Healthsystems, the Florida Hospital Association, the Florida Medical Association, and The Association of Community Hospitals and Health Systems of Florida. The Florida Supreme Court held that Florida’s wrongful death statute, which prohibits adult children from recovering non-pecuniary damages for the death of their parents due to medical malpractice, did not violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. and Florida Constitutions.

Zane v. Coastal Unilube, Inc., 774 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

In this motor vehicle collision case, the appellate court agreed with the jury’s finding that the plaintiff was not permanently injured from the collision. The court also held that the defense’s expert was qualified to testify as to the probabilities of the plaintiff suffering no injuries from a low speed accident while wearing a seatbelt.

Cohen, Scherer & Cohen, P.A. v. Pacific Employers Insurance Co., 654 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

The district court dismissed this appeal as being premature since the main claim brought by a malpractice insurer against the insured law firm to collect a policy deductible was still pending in the trial court and was interrelated with dismissed (and later appealed) counterclaim.

Noel v. North Broward Hospital District, 664 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

In this medical malpractice action brought by a child’s parents against physicians who were hired as part-time "consultants" at a health care facility operated by HRS, the appellate court found that one of the defendant professional associations (P.A.) was not liable for an individual physician’s alleged malpractice because the physician was not acting in the scope of his employment for the P.A. when the malpractice was allegedly committed. The appellate court also reversed a summary judgment in favor of another P.A. because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether sovereign immunity could extend to them.

Coastal Unilube, Inc. v. Smith, 598 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

In this injunctive action brought by a former employer seeking to order a former employee to comply with a covenant not to compete, the appellate court found that the injunction should not have been dissolved based on lack of consideration because the employee’s continued employment after executing the covenant constituted adequate consideration.

Santa Cruz v. Northwest Dade Community Health Center, Inc., 590 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

In this case which tested the bounds of a medical facility’s liability for acts committed by an individual being treated on an outpatient basis, the district court held that: (1) the victims, who were not patients of the health center themselves, could not maintain a medical malpractice action against the center; and (2) the center owed no duty to the victims to protect them from the patient because he was not in the center’s custody.

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. CAP International Trading Corp., 532 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

The appellate court reversed a judgment in favor of a shipper which had sued an ocean carrier for damages resulting from the late delivery of a shipment of goods. The district court held that because the bill of lading, which contained the terms of the parties’ agreement, was not ambiguous, that the trial court improperly permitted the shipper to introduce other evidence as to the guaranteed arrival date of the goods.