Page 7
Chapter 558’s Notice of Claim Procedure – It May Trigger a Duty to Defend Under Your CGL Policy
Wed Feb 7, 2018 Legal Alerts
The Florida Supreme Court recently answered a question that will impact for some time construction defect claims and those insurers called upon to defend them. In the case styled Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S960b, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the pre-suit notice and repair process set forth in Chapter 558, Florida Statutes, is a “suit” within the meaning of a commercial general liability policy.
Eleventh Crcuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Surety Finding That Surety Is Not Bound by Default Judgment Against Bond Principal
Tue Jul 18, 2017 Legal Alerts
In David Lawrence Federer v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., et al., No. 16-16592, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12358 (11th Cir. July 11, 2017), Keith Lichtman and Zack Anderson obtained a favorable decision from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the District Court’s (N.D. Ga. - Atlanta Division) grant of summary judgment in favor of their surety client.
Florida Supreme Court Declines to Adopt Florida Legislature’s Daubert Amendment
Thu Feb 16, 2017 Articles, Legal Alerts
For many years Florida followed the Frye standard for the admissibility of expert testimony based upon new or novel scientific evidence. See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). In 2013, the Florida Legislature, through what has been dubbed the Daubert Amendment, replaced the Frye standard with the Daubert standard. The Daubert standard stems from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which established the federal court standard for expert testimony. Since then, federal courts have continued to apply the Daubert standard, and 36 states have adopted the Daubert standard.Motor Vehicle Dealer Bonds: Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal Punts on Attorneys' Fees Issue
Wed Feb 15, 2017 Articles, Legal Alerts
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently had the opportunity to provide much needed guidance on the issue of whether a statutory motor vehicle dealer bond caps the surety’s liability for plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees at the penal sum of the bond. Unfortunately, the court found another issue to be dispositive and declined to rule on the attorneys’ fees issue.
categories
archives
- September 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- April 2023
- December 2022
- October 2022
- August 2021
- August 2020
- February 2020
- July 2019
- June 2019
- September 2018
- August 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- July 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- September 2016
- July 2016
- September 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014