Brian E. Catelli is a member of the Casualty department with 14 years of courtroom experience. He focuses his practice on general liability cases involving property and personal injury claims, premise liability, and nursing home defense matters.
Prior to joining Marshall Dennehey, Brian was an associate in the Orlando office of an insurance defense law firm, providing coverage of complex litigation cases from inception of matter through to judgment in the areas of premise liability, automotive and general liability. Previously, he was founder of his law practice in Orlando where he handled civil, criminal and bankruptcy matters. He also practiced with other law firms in Orlando, handling large caseloads of foreclosure and bankruptcy cases.
Brian worked as an assistant state attorney for four years with the Orange County Prosecution Office. He is well versed in legal issues that stem from criminal conviction. He handled numerous criminal matters, ranging from DUI manslaughter to aggravated assault with firearm, including crimes ranging in sentence from 20 year minimum mandatory to life in prison and acting as first chair in over 20 trials, second-chaired over 30 trials, and 35 bench trials. He managed caseloads from initial arrest through to disposition and appeals of Circuit Court rulings.
Brian received his juris doctor from Florida A&M University College of Law in May 2010 and a Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration from Walla Walla College, Washington in May 2006.
He is licensed to practice law in Florida.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Florida Appellate Court Reverses Summary Judgment, Holding Commercial Landlord Had a Duty to Investigate Roof Leak
July 20, 2026
The District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's entry of summary judgment, holding that the commercial landlord owed a duty of reasonable care to investigate a roof leak. Plaintiff, Scott Hale, managed a Domino's Pizza operating on premises leased from Sleiman Enterprises, Inc., slipped and fell on water that had leaked from the roof into the kitchen. Because the lease permitted only Sleiman to access the roof, Domino's could not investigate the source and instead reported the leak to Sleiman. The trial court granted summary judgment for Sleiman, reasoning that the lease required Domino's to maintain the allegedly defective hood vent and that Sleiman therefore owed no duty. The appellate court reversed, holding that Sleiman owed a duty of reasonable care because its exclusive control over roof access foreseeably created a zone of risk and prevented Domino's from discovering or repairing the source of the leak. The court held that the lease provision assigning hood vent maintenance to Domino's did not relieve Sleiman of that duty, and it rejected the argument that the danger was open and obvious, noting that an obvious danger discharges only the duty to warn, not the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. The ruling reinforces that a landlord's retained exclusive control over an area can support a duty notwithstanding a tenant's contractual maintenance obligations.
Case Law Alerts
Florida Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment, Stresses Need to Properly File Video Evidence to Preserve Record
January 1, 2026
Marilyn Reynolds was a customer in the Belk, Inc. store when she tripped over an unsecured, wide-based metal stanchion and sustained injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment based on screen shots from store surveillance video, finding that the hazard was open and obvious and that the stanchion was not inherently dangerous. However, none of the screen shots actually depicted the stanchion that caused the fall, nor did they show the plaintiff looking at any stanchions located behind her. The appellate court held that the defendant’s summary judgment evidence failed to conclusively negate the plaintiff’s sworn testimony that she was unaware of the stanchion until the fall occurred. Citing Muurahainen v. TJX Cos., 397 So. 3d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), the court emphasized that summary judgment evidence must conclusively, clearly, and completely negate a plaintiff’s sworn testimony to establish an open and obvious defense as a matter of law. Because the screen shots did not depict the actual hazard or the plaintiff’s visual perspective, triable issues of fact remained. Notably, the court highlighted the critical importance of properly incorporating video evidence into the record. Although the defendant provided a copy of the full surveillance video to the trial court the day before the hearing, the video was never filed with the lower court or made part of the appellate record. The trial court commented on and appeared to rely upon the video in granting summary judgment, but the appellate court could not consider the video or any descriptions of its contents on appeal. This procedural deficiency underscores that parties relying on video evidence at summary judgment must ensure such evidence is formally filed and included in the record to preserve it for appellate review. Accordingly, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The decision reinforces that defendants seeking summary judgment on open and obvious grounds must present evidence that directly addresses the specific hazard at issue and the plaintiff’s ability to perceive it, and they must properly incorporate that evidence into the court record.
