Publications
A workers’ compensation judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that decedent was in an ongoing employment relationship with defendant at the time of death and was not a borrowed servant at the time of his fatality.
This case involved two companies involved in coal mining operations, West Spring and Reading Anthracite Company (RAC). The decedent was employed by West Spring as an equipment operator, but he had been scheduled to be laid off.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No.
Court reverses Appeal Board ruling on an entitlement to reinstate benefits as of date claimant returned LIBC-760 form to employer, as benefits were in suspension status because of a judge’s prior decision, not for claimant’s failure to return the form.
This case involves multiple intertwined rounds of litigation. The claimant was a firefighter who sustained injuries in May 2004, when he fell in a stairwell while pulling down a ceiling in a burning building.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp - News and Results*
NEWS
RESULTS*
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 28, No.
Court issues order striking plaintiff’s demand for attorney’s fees.
An allegation in the plaintiff’s complaint demanded a right to attorney’s fees under Fla. Stat. §§ 627.428, 627.9373 and/or 627.7152. Truck Insurance Exchange filed a motion to strike the plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees.
Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – July 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal develo
Second District Court of Appeals finds the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of insured where she and carrier’s competing affidavits created a general issue of material fact which should have precluded summary judgment.
Ms. Lassiter alleged that in April 2020, her home sustained damage when wind and hail damaged her roof, causing leaks and resulting in interior water intrusion damage.
Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – July 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal develo
Fourth District Court upheld that, while the homeowners’ Proposal for Settlement was a joint proposal, there was no need for apportionment to comply with rule 1.442.
On May 15, 2024, the Fourth District Court of Appeals rendered a decision regarding a prevailing homeowners’ request for attorney’s fees on ground that the Proposal for Settlement (PFS) was valid under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(3).
Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – July 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal develo