Appellate Decisions

Client satisfaction is our number one goal. We strive to obtain the best possible results for our clients whether by settlement or jury verdict. Sometimes, of course, final judgments based on successful jury verdicts are appealed by the other side. Even then, we are relentless in our pursuit of our goal, having successfully litigated cases all the way to the Florida Supreme Court*.

Advantage Digital Systems, Inc. v. Digital Imaging Services, Inc., 870 So 2d 1111
(Fla 2d DCA 2003)
The Firm expeditiously overturned a preliminary injunction issued by the trial court precluding its clients from engaging in a new business, which was alleged to be a competitor of the appellee. The firm was successful in appealing the entry of the injunction and obtaining a substantial award of attorneys' fees on behalf of their clients.

Lemieux v. Tandem Health Care of Florida, Inc., 862 So 2d 745
(Fla 2d DCA 2003)
The Firm was successful in obtaining writ of certiorari overturning a trial court order allowing attorneys for a nursing home to conduct ex parte interviews with the plaintiff's treating physicians. In a case of first impression the appellate court held that §456.057(6) Florida Statutes (2002) did not abrogate the patient/physician privilege in the context of a nursing home neglect and abuse lawsuit.

Churchill Development Inc. v. Prime Outdoor Group, 816 So.2d 764
(Fla. 2nd DCA 2002)
This appeal followed a lawsuit filed by our property owner clients against a billboard company for unlawful detention of the property. At the center of the dispute was a Lease entered into by the billboard company and the previous owners of the property. After having been requested by the property owner to remove its billboard, the billboard company maintained it had a perpetual easement and refused to do so. The trial before the court resulted in a final judgment against our client, the property owners. On appeal, the second district court reversed the trial court's order and entered judgment in favor of our clients.

Esancy v. Hodges, 727 So.2d 308
(Fla. 2nd DCA 1999)
This appeal was based on an issue involving proper jury instructions. At trial, evidence was introduced that the Plaintiff's injuries were caused in part by her automobile accident, which combined with a pre-existing injury. The trial court refused to give the concurring cause instruction, which would have instructed the jury that where a defendant's negligent acts combine with a plaintiff's physical condition to produce an injury, the defendant may be liable for the injury or aggravation produced. The appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling, stating that it was error for the court to have refused to give this instruction, and remanded the case back to trial. The case settled following the release of this opinion.

Henderson, Sheriff of Hillsborough County v. Bowden, 737 So.2d 532
(Fla. 1999)
The Supreme Court of Florida ruled in favor of our clients, stating that the Sheriff's deputies owed a legal duty to passengers of the vehicle that the deputies had stopped for suspicion of DUI. The Court further held that the deputies had placed the passengers in danger by directing an intoxicated passenger to drive to a nearby convenience store. Therefore, by creating a zone of risk, the negligent acts of the Sheriff's deputies were not shielded by the sovereign immunity statute and the Plaintiffs' case could proceed. After the Supreme Court opinion was released, the case was settled.

Bowden v. Henderson, Sheriff of Hillsborough County, 700 So.2d 714
(Fla. 2nd DCA 1997)
This wrongful death case involved the negligent acts of the Sheriff's office in the handling of a traffic stop for driving under the influence. Typically, a law enforcement officer or agency is not liable for the discretionary act of making an arrest. In this case, however, the negligent acts occurred after an arrest was made and were "operational" and therefore not protected under the cloak of sovereign immunity. After having arrested the drunk driver of the vehicle, the Sheriff's deputies instructed or allowed a passenger to drive the vehicle away from the scene of the traffic stop, even though they knew or should have known that the passenger was at least as intoxicated as the driver. After the second driver sped away from the scene, the Sheriff's deputies engaged in a high speed pursuit of the vehicle, the result of which was a fatal accident where two of the remaining three passengers were killed. The lower court had dismissed the case on a summary judgment stating that the acts of the deputies were protected under the sovereign immunity statute, §768.28, Florida Statutes. On behalf of our clients, we appealed. The Second District Court ruled in our favor and reversed the trial court's ruling. The Defendant then appealed the case to the Florida Supreme Court. See Florida Supreme Court opinion for final outcome.

Polk County v. Sofka 675 So 2d 615
(Fla 2d DCA 1996)
The Firm successfully represented a plaintiff who had received a $6,500,000.00 jury verdict against Polk County as a result of its failure to correct a known dangerous condition at an intersection. The case was later appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida as well and thereafter settled.

John J. Jerue Truck Broker, Inc. v. The Insurance Company of North America, 646 So 2d 780
(Fla 2d DCA 1994)
The Firm successfully appealed a trial court's entry of a final summary judgment in favor of an insurance company in a bad faith action based upon a determination that the insurer's decision in the case was fairly debatable. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and held that the "fairly debatable" defense is not available to a defendant in a statutory bad faith action and remanded the matter to the trial court.

U.S. Boring and Tunneling, Inc. v. Proc Robinson Enterprises, Inc., 633 So 2d 118
(Fla 5th DCA 1994)
The Firm successfully appealed a directed verdict entered against the plaintiff in an action to collect under public works bond. The case was retried and settled during the second trial.

Hoover v. Polk County Sheriff's Department, 611 So 2d 1331
(Fla 2d DCA 1993)
The Firm successfully appealed a trial court ruling that the Sheriff and County were immune from suit for allowing a motor vehicle to remain on the side of the road where it was an obstruction to motorists. The trial court held that the motor vehicle constituted a known dangerous condition for which the county and sheriff could be held accountable.

Gerard v. Dept. of Transportation, 472 So.2d 1170
(Fla. 1985)
The issue of great public importance certified to the Florida Supreme Court was "whether the satisfaction of a claim by payment of the statutory amount specified under §768.25, Florida Statutes, precludes a further claim, otherwise authorized, in excess of the statutory amount." The Supreme Court decided in favor of our client, answering "No" to the certified question. The Court reasoned that the Plaintiff could continue with the case as a preliminary step to seeking a claims bill from the legislature.

Gerard v. Dept. of Transportation, 455 So.2d 500
(Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
This landmark case dealt with a government agency's financial responsibility under the sovereign immunity statute, § 786.28(5), Florida Statutes. The facts giving rise to the claim were tragic. A young father brought a wrongful death claim for the deaths of his wife and two minor children, who were killed when an tree limb of a dying oak tree fell onto their car, crushing them to death. The issue on appeal was whether the payment of the statutory maximum by a different governmental agency precluded the Plaintiff from pursuing his claim against the DOT in the circuit court. The district court held that it did preclude our client from continuing his case. However, the district court certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance. See Supreme Court opinion for final outcome.

Pope v. Carl Hankins, Inc., 411 So.2d 898
(Fla. 2nd DCA 1982)
For 183 Polk County Courthouse employees (including Judges and lawyers) against general contractor, architect and multiple subcontractors for sick-building related illnesses.

Kenilworth Insurance Company v. Drake, 396 So.2d 836
(Fla. 2nd DCA 1981)
This case involved complex automobile insurance issues. Our client sustained serious injuries in an automobile accident where an uninsured motorist driver was at-fault. She presented a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under her policy. The insurance company denied the benefits and a declaratory action was filed. The trial court ruled in our client's favor and the insurance company appealed. The lower court's ruling was upheld and our client was awarded a judgment against her insurance company for the total amount of her uninsured motorist benefits.

Lilly, O'Toole & Brown, LLP
Lakeland Office: (863) 683-1111
Bartow Office: (863) 533-5525M
Sebring Office: (863) 471-0003
Lake Wales Office: (863) 676-1991
Haines City Office: (863) 422-1282
Wauchula Office: (863) 767-1111

Also providing legal assistance to clients from:
Wauchula, Lake Placid, Avon Park, Plant City, Brandon, and Valrico, Florida.