Secured summary judgment in favor of a commercial insurer in a Hurricane Irma claim based on res judicata and collateral estoppel, which was upheld on appeal. After the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of a commercial insurer in a Hurricane Irma claim, the same insured filed a second lawsuit attempting to allege that the insured had submitted notice of a supplemental or reopened claim by virtue of discovery responses served in the first lawsuit. This issue was raised by the insured in the first lawsuit in a motion for rehearing. In addition, the insured did not complete repairs or otherwise take any other action between entry of summary judgment in the first lawsuit and filing of the second lawsuit to establish a change in circumstances and the submission of a supplemental or reopened claim. Although the trial court initially granted a motion to dismiss based on res judicata and collateral estoppel, the trial court provided the insured with leave to file an amended complaint. Summary judgment was subsequently granted in favor of the insurer on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel. New Hope Ministries, Inc. v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., --- So. 3d ---, 2025 WL 85190 (Fla. 6th DCA Jan. 14, 2025).

Prevailed on appeal after eight years of contentious litigation over insurance benefits, including a five-day trial. First, the team recovered a judgment in the trial court for $1,755,436.85 in favor of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida and against Zenith Insurance Company on claims for equitable subrogation and unjust enrichment. Blue Cross sought reimbursement for amounts it paid for medical treatment of an injured employee, which should have been paid by Zenith, the employer’s workers compensation insurer. Zenith appealed. On October 12, 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeal summarily affirmed the trial court judgment a day after oral argument. Blue Cross also prevailed on its claims for attorneys’ fees in both the trial court and in the Fourth DCA. Zenith Ins. Co. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 373 So. 3d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).

Successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice, which was affirmed on appeal in a legal malpractice case in Miami-Dade County. The personal representative of an estate filed a wrongful death and survival claim against the decedent’s former lawyers and law firm alleging that the failure to timely file a claim for stacking underinsured motorist coverage caused the decedent to commit suicide three and a half years after the law firm was discharged. The law firm moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice, arguing, in part, that the law firm did not owe a duty to the decedent to prevent his suicide and that the statute of limitations had expired on any purported legal malpractice claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice on all grounds, and the ruling was affirmed on appeal. Andreasen v. Klein, Glasser, Park & Lowe, P.L. et al., 342 So. 3d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).

Secured summary judgment in favor of a commercial insurer in a Hurricane Irma claim on two separate grounds. First, following the carrier’s initial adjustment of the claim, the insured failed to provide notice of a supplemental or reopened claim prior to filing the lawsuit as required pursuant to the notice provision of the policy, rendering the lawsuit premature. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment based on the noncompliance with the notice provision. Second, the policy provided that replacement cost damages were not recoverable unless and until repairs were completed and those repairs were completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the loss. The insured never submitted a claim for actual cash value damages prior to filing or during the lawsuit. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment finding that since the insured failed to complete repairs, the insured was not entitled to recover replacement cost value damages pursuant to the terms of the policy. The trial court’s rulings were affirmed on appeal. The trial court awarded the insurer attorney’s fees and costs against the insured. New Hope Ministries, Inc. v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 340 So. 3d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).