Cleveland Clinic Florida Hospital v. Lamkin, 987 So.2d 814 (Fla. 2008)
This case originated as a medical malpractice case brought by a Hospital patient who sustained injuries to her hand as a result of a negligently administered IV by an agency nurse. The defendants sued in this action–the Hospital (represented by the firm), the nurse, and the agency which employed the nurse–settled with plaintiff and the Hospital sought to recoup its settlement monies from the negligent nurse and the agency that employed her on theories of common law and contractual indemnity. The trial court partially granted summary judgment in favor of the nurse and the staffing agency finding that the Hospital was not entitled to recoup the monies it paid to settle the action.

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.

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.

Mexiport, Inc. v. Frontier Communications Services, Inc., 253 F.3d 573 (11th Cir. 2001).

In affirming a summary judgment entered in favor of a telecommunications company, the Eleventh Circuit held that the filing of an informal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission precludes the same person from bringing an action in a federal district court based on the same claim.

R/S Associates of Florida v. Bellsouth Mobility, Inc., 778 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

In dismissing this appeal, the appellate court held that an order granting summary judgment of one count of a complaint, where other counts against the same parties are pending, is not authorized when the dismissed count is interrelated with the remaining counts.

Valdes v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 782 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

The court held that because there was no evidence that newspaper vending machines at a corner location obstructed motorists’ view of a stop sign, the newspaper company which owned the machines was entitled to summary judgment because the machines were not the "cause in fact" of the accident in which the motorist ran the stop sign and struck a motorcyclist.

Saby v. J.C. Penney Life Insurance Co., 769 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)

The appellate court affirmed a cost judgment in favor of the defendant because the trial court’s departure from the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions was within the trial court’s discretion.