Charles T. Wells

This case concerned the interpretation of Florida Statutes section 627.727(6)(b) governing the timing of an underinsured motorist (UM) insurer's subrogation claim against a tortfeasor. After the tortfeasor's insurer offered policy limits and the UM insurer paid the injured party to preserve subrogation rights, the trial court dismissed the tortfeasor from the injured party's suit and indicated the UM insurer would need to pursue a separate third-party action. The Fifth District affirmed in part, ruling that the statute requires the UM insurer to wait until final resolution of the UM claim before bringing any subrogation action, and the Florida Supreme Court approved that decision. The core reasoning was that the statute's plain language conditions the right to seek subrogation on the conclusion of the UM claim, precluding joinder or third-party practice during the ongoing UM proceedings.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, Jodi Benjamin, as personal representative of a deceased nursing home patient, sued Tandem Healthcare for negligence and sought records of adverse medical incidents under Amendment 7 to the Florida Constitution. The trial court ordered production, but the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that nursing homes are not included in the amendment's definitions of health care facilities or providers. The court reasoned that the amendment incorporates definitions from section 381.026, Florida Statutes, the Patient's Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, which applies only to hospitals and certain physicians, not nursing homes.

healthcareprocedure

The case concerned whether a trial court could consider a sexual abuse victim's recantation when deciding if the state was unable to prove the elements of the charged offenses, allowing admission of the defendant's statement under section 92.565, Florida Statutes, without first establishing corpus delicti. The Florida Supreme Court held that a victim's recantation is a relevant factor in that determination and approved the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision remanding the case for a new hearing with specific findings. The court reasoned that the statute's plain language, including the phrase "but are not limited to," permits trial courts to consider factors beyond the enumerated examples of victim disability at the time of the offense. It disapproved conflicting precedent from the First District that had strictly limited the statute to cases involving such disabilities.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was an advisory opinion requested by Florida's Attorney General on the validity of a citizen-sponsored initiative petition to amend the state constitution's growth management provisions. The proposed amendment would allow registered voters in a county or municipality to petition for a referendum on changes to local growth management or land-use plans, requiring approval by 10% of voters in the jurisdiction before the change could take effect. The Florida Supreme Court held that the initiative complied with the single-subject requirement of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, that the ballot title and summary satisfied the clarity standards of section 101.161(1), Florida Statutes, and that the financial impact statement met statutory requirements. The core reasoning was that the amendment's scope was limited to creating a narrow petition-and-referendum mechanism without substantially affecting multiple branches of government or altering existing voter rights in a misleading way.

electionsenvironmentproperty

In Ford v. Browning, appellants challenged two proposed constitutional amendments submitted by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission (TBRC) for the 2008 ballot, arguing that the TBRC lacked authority to propose changes to the religious freedom provision (article I, section 3) and the public education provision (article IX, section 1) of the Florida Constitution, and that the ballot title and summary for one proposal was misleading. The Florida Supreme Court held that the TBRC possessed authority under article XI, section 6(e) to propose amendments on these subjects because the constitutional text grants broad power without explicit subject-matter limits. The Court further determined that the ballot title and summary for Proposed Amendment 9 (on school funding and the state's education duty) violated section 101.161 by combining distinct issues under an incomplete title that failed to inform voters of a major change, while the language for Proposed Amendment 7 was not addressed as misleading in the excerpt. The decision rested on de novo review of the constitutional language and established precedent requiring clear, accurate ballot disclosures without misleading omissions.

religious libertyelectionscivil rights

This case concerned whether a defendant's consent to provide a saliva sample for DNA testing was voluntary when obtained through police deception. While detained on a probation violation, Wyche was told by an investigator that the sample was needed for a fictitious burglary investigation, when it was actually sought for an unrelated sexual assault probe; the sample later matched evidence from a different burglary, leading to charges. Wyche moved to suppress the evidence, citing a conflicting appellate decision, but the trial court denied the motion, he was convicted, and the First District affirmed. The Florida Supreme Court approved that affirmance, distinguishing the conflicting case and holding that voluntariness of consent is determined by the totality of the circumstances under Supreme Court precedent, with deception not automatically rendering consent involuntary. The court reviewed the legal question de novo while deferring to factual findings.

criminal lawprocedure