Case Summaries
Injury & Tort Law
[01/15]
In re United Scaffolding, Inc.
In plaintiff's action for damages he suffered when he fell from a scaffolding unit built by the defendant company, trial court abused its discretion by disregarding a jury verdict and granting new trial when the reason it gave for doing so was "in the interest of justice and fairness."
[01/14]
Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Admin. Hearings
In a consolidated medical malpractice action, involving the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan established by the legislature, the decision by the Second District is quashed and remanded where, in order to satisfy the notice requirement of section 766.316, Florida Statutes, both participating physicians and hospitals with participating physicians on staff must provide obstetrical patients with notice of their participating in the plan.
[12/11]
Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho
In a products liability action against Whirlpool Corporation, judgment of the court of appeals' that a design defect in an electric Whirlpool clothes dryer caused a fatal fire is reversed as the expert testimony of design defect is legally insufficient to support the verdict.
[12/11]
Metro Allied Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Lin
In plaintiff's action against an insurance company for negligence and a violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) for failure to procure a commercial general liability (CGL) policy, the judgment of the court of appeals in favor of the plaintiff is reversed and remanded is the causation standard for a claimed failure to procure insurance under a negligence theory and under the DTPA requires proof of the availability of some insurance that would have covered the plaintiff's damages.
[12/11]
D.R. Horton-Texas, Ltd. v. Markel Int'l Ins. Co., Ltd.
In an action brought by a general contractor seeking a defense and coverage from the commercial general liability insurer for alleged construction defects, judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the duty to indemnify is not dependent on the duty to defend and an insurer may have a duty to indemnify its insured even if the duty to defend never arises; and 2) in determining coverage, a matter dependent on the facts and circumstances of the alleged injury-causing event, parties may introduce evidence during coverage litigation to establish or refute the duty to indemnify.
More...
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
|
