January 25, 2022
January 14, 2022
January 6, 2022
January 5, 2022
- Admiralty cases can be brought in state court: Personal injury plaintiffs are permitted to bring an admiralty case in state court under the “Savings to Suitors Clause” in the 1789 Judiciary Act, clause codified at 28 USC § 1331. The main reason they might wish to do so is because there are no jury trials in federal court admiralty cases.
- Admiralty jurisdiction depends on location of the incident and relation to maritime activity: To fall under admiralty law, the tort must have occurred in a location of maritime activity and occur in connection with traditional maritime activity, such as fishing, transportation of goods or people. Pleasure boat and jet ski incidents can also be admiralty cases, depending on where the incident occurred.
- Some state court defenses are not available in admiralty cases: An admiralty based case proceeding in Florida state courts may loose some procedures and defenses that are based on Florida law, such as filing proposals for settlement and attributing fault to non-party, Fabre defendants.
- Vessel owners can limit their liability: People or companies who have legal title to the vessel) may be able to limit their liability to the post-casualty value of the vessel, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §30501, if the incident occurred in US Navigable Waters.
- Six month deadline to limit liability: A vessel owner only has six months from the date of the loss to seek limitation of liability by filing an action in Federal Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. XIII, Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture, Rule F.
December 10, 2021
December 9, 2021
November 30, 2021
November 29, 2021
November 19, 2021
November 10, 2021
November 5, 2021
November 4, 2021
November 4, 2021
October 21, 2021
October 19, 2021
October 12, 2021
We are so proud to be in the top 3 of The National Law Journal’s (NLJ) Women in Law Scorecard for 2021! The scorecard ranks 350 of the largest law firms in the country by their representation of female attorneys and partners, and we are so honored to be a part of it!
We look forward to continuing our efforts in making sure ladders of opportunity remain open for everyone regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, religion and other self-identifications. Access the NLJ scorecard here.
September 14, 2021
August 19, 2021
Peter Baumberger - Construction Law, Litigation – Construction, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
Caryn Bellus - Appellate Practice
Brad McCormick - Commercial Litigation, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
Charles Watkins - Litigation – Insurance, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
Angela Flowers - Appellate Practice
Betsy Gallagher - Appellate Practice
Laurie Adams - Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants
Michael Carney - Litigation - Insurance
Jane Rankin - Real Estate Law
Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. Their methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.
Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of the quality of legal services. Their belief has always been that the quality of a peer review survey is directly related to the quality of the voters.
July 1, 2021
Certified Priority Restoration (CPR) had executed an assignment of benefits with the insured, with a term of the assignment stating it was operating “as a direct request to (Citizens) for approval to exceed” the $3,000.00 policy limit for Reasonable Emergency Measures coverage.
This document was transmitted to Citizens as part of 18 separate documents sent by CPR, with no specific attention drawn to the provision and no attempt to formally request to exceed the $3,000.00 cap as required by the policy.
The appellate court found CPR’s “request” to be a “gotcha tactic” which is not permitted under Florida law. Therefore, Citizens was under no duty to pay CPR above and beyond the policy cap for Reasonable Emergency Measures. Read case here.