.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Summary judgment ruling reversed for failure to comply with timing requirements of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(b).

Beaches MRI, a/a/o Eileen Thibodeaux v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, Fla. 4th DCA, 4D2023-0800, June 6, 2024

July 1, 2024

In this case, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed issues of timing with respect to summary judgment motions under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(b). Beaches MRI appealed a trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of Safeco, arguing the trial court erred in granting summary judgment as Safeco’s motion and evidence in support of summary judgment were not filed at least 40 days prior to the hearing. The Fourth District agreed and reversed.

The district court held the requirements of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(b) are clear in that it requires not just the summary judgment motion, but also the moving party’s supporting factual positions, to be filed at least 40 days before the scheduled hearing on such a motion “in all but extraordinary circumstances.” Here, Safeco filed its summary judgment motion on February 15, 2023, its supporting affidavit and evidence on February 22, 2023, and the summary judgment hearing was conducted on February 23, 2023. The court noted that Safeco did not make any attempt to argue or invoke the extraordinary circumstance exception to the timing requirement but, rather, argued that Beaches MRI suffered no prejudice from Safeco’s noncompliance.

The Fourth District rejected this lack of prejudice argument from Safeco, holding it is irrelevant in applying the timing requirements of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(b) and that the timing requirements in the Rule must be followed unless there is a cogent, extraordinary circumstance hindering or preventing such compliance. 


 

Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – July 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.