THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Arbitration -- Award -- Confirmation -- Trial court erred by granting defendant's motion to vacate or dismiss petition to confirm arbitration award -- Motion was untimely where it was filed more than ninety days after delivery of award -- Trial court had no authority to extend ninety-day period -- Because defendant did not file a timely motion to vacate or modify award, trial court was statutorily mandated to confirm award
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Attorney's fees -- Sanctions -- Justiciable issues -- Unsupported claims or defenses -- Safe harbor notice -- Successive notices -- Plaintiffs' timely voluntary dismissal in response to a later-served, successive motion for section 57.105 sanctions raising the same grounds raised in a previously filed motion precluded an award of sanctions on the earlier motion -- Service of second section 57.105 motion raising the same grounds afforded plaintiffs a new 21-day safe harbor period and a final opportunity to avoid sanctions -- Denial of motion for section 57.105 attorney's fees affirmed
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Condominiums -- Injunctions -- Common elements -- Material alterations -- Electric vehicle charging stations -- Trial court did not err by granting condominium association's emergency motion for temporary injunction and ordering unit owners to stop using EV charging stations that owners had installed without authorization -- Discussion of section 718.113(8) -- Court rejects argument that the five requirements set forth in subsection (8)(h) are the only limitations association can legally impose on a unit owner's installation of an EV charging station -- While installation of EV charging stations by an association cannot constitute a “material alteration or substantial addition” under subsection (2)(a), installation by a unit owner may amount to such -- If a party can establish through evidence that a unit owner's proposed installation of an EV charging station materially alters or substantially adds to common elements of association property, the installation is subject to the approval requirements of subsection (2)(a) -- Evidence was sufficient to show that owners' installation of EV charging stations was a material alteration or substantial addition where owners ran a lengthy electrical conduit through condominium parking garage and drilled holes and screws in association's electrical box and garage walls to attach conduit -- As a material alteration or substantial addition, statute and declaration required seventy-five percent of association's voting interests to approve project prior to commencement -- Unit owners' violation of statute and declaration, along with their altering of common element property to an unknown extent without any input from the association, establishes both a likelihood that the association will be successful on the merits and that it is without an adequate remedy at law -- Requiring compliance with statutory requirements is in public interest
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Homeowners -- Insured's action against insurer -- Declaratory judgments -- Conditions precedent -- Presuit notice -- Necessity -- Appeals -- Certiorari -- Action seeking judicial determination of enforceability of appraisal award form and a declaration of rights relative to appraisal award form -- Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by denying insurer's motion to dismiss for failure to provide presuit notice based on its conclusion that, because insured was not seeking monetary damages, no presuit notice was required -- Section 627.70152, which applies to “all suits arising under” a residential property insurance policy, requires presuit notice in declaratory judgment actions, even when action does not seek monetary relief -- Court rejects argument that insured's suit does not “arise under” her residential insurance policy where resolution of dispute will require interpretation of policy terms
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Insurance -- Property -- Coverage -- Election to repair -- Insolvent insurers -- Florida Insurance Guaranty Association -- Attorney's fees -- Action alleging that insolvent insurer and FIGA had breached repair contract because insolvent insurer's contractor had performed defective repairs and insurer and FIGA had denied payment for items related to ordinance and law coverage -- Trial court erred by denying insureds' motion for attorney's fees following entry of consent judgment based on determination that section 627.428 did not authorize award of attorney's fees because insureds' claims were brought under a Drew repair contract rather than the separate and distinct insurance policy -- A claim for breach of a Drew repair contract falls within purview of section 627.428 because such a suit arises “under a policy or contract executed by the insurer” -- Trial court's analysis, which drew a distinction between the terms “under” and “arises out of,” ignored supreme court precedent suggesting that the proper inquiry under section 627.428 is whether the dispute “arises under” the policy -- Furthermore, a Drew repair contract is a “contract executed by the insurer” under ordinary meaning of those words -- An insurer cannot escape statutory fee liability merely by substituting a repair obligation for a payment obligation when both flow from the same covered loss and the same policy -- Trial court erred in determining that attorney's fees were not authorized under section 631.70 because FIGA had not denied coverage through affirmative action -- FIGA's pre-answer conduct constituted a partial denial of the claim by affirmative action where FIGA only paid a portion of claim after subtracting multiple items from insureds' estimate, and only possible explanation for cutting items was that FIGA had concluded items were not covered -- Additionally, FIGA's raising of affirmative defense that claim did not constitute a “covered claim” under FIGA Act amounted to a denial by affirmative action under circumstances of case -- Court rejects argument that FIGA's post-answer conduct of litigating its affirmative defenses cannot be considered as denials of coverage by affirmative action
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal Law Headnotes (Jump to Civil Law Headnotes)

THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

No Criminal Law Headnotes selected this week.