Joseph P. McNulty

This case arose from a declaratory judgment and personal injury action in which Aetna sought to determine coverage under a $300,000 uninsured motorist policy issued to Edward Langel's mother-in-law after Langel was injured as a passenger in an accident involving two uninsured drivers, one of whom was his brother. The Langels prevailed on coverage, and a jury awarded $450,000 in damages (reduced by 10% comparative negligence), leading to disputes over set-offs, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees following an earlier appeal. The appellate court held that the $100,000 settlement under Langel's own UM policy could be set off as duplicative of damages but that PIP, medpay, and related payments could not, as they were not collateral sources under § 627.7372; it reversed the award of prejudgment interest because the action was essentially for personal injury damages rather than contract; and it reversed an additional $38,000 attorney fee award payable by Aetna for lack of statutory or other basis. The court affirmed the remainder of the judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its rulings on set-offs.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Garcia v. State, the appellant and a co-defendant were jointly charged with armed trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy after being caught in the same undercover sting operation, and both were convicted of lesser included offenses. The co-defendant had already been acquitted on appeal in a prior decision finding objective entrapment as a matter of law based on impermissible police activity under due process analysis from Cruz v. State. The court held that the earlier ruling established the law of the case, requiring Garcia's discharge on the same due process grounds applicable to all ensnared by the conduct.

criminal law

The case involved John Grover's convictions on seven counts of grand larceny and one count of consumer fraud arising from his involvement in a business selling and leasing vending machines along with related service contracts through corporations like PMS and Prestige. The trial court had found him guilty based on testimony from investors who complained about delayed or incomplete deliveries, with the state arguing that sales continued despite known operational shortfalls indicating fraudulent intent. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed all convictions and remanded for entry of judgments of acquittal. The court held that the wholly circumstantial evidence on larceny failed to exclude Grover's reasonable hypothesis that he was attempting in good faith to run a legitimate business hampered by external difficulties until his arrest ended operations. For the consumer fraud count, the court found the evidence insufficient because the specific victim named in the charging document never testified and no misrepresentations to that individual were proven.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Steven Rivet's appeal of his conviction and mandatory minimum 25-year-to-life sentence for sexual battery of a three-and-a-half-year-old girl, where the child, then four-and-a-half at trial, was the sole eyewitness identifying him as the perpetrator. The primary issue on appeal was the trial court's ruling that the child was competent to testify without taking an oath under Florida evidence code sections 90.603 and 90.605. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial judge did not abuse discretion after conducting two voir dire examinations in which the child demonstrated the ability to recall facts, articulate the difference between truth and lies, and understand the duty to tell the truth, consistent with precedents such as Lloyd v. State and Griffin v. State. The court also reviewed the child's full trial testimony, which further supported the competency finding, and rejected claims of coaching or intimidation as matters resolved by the jury. The remaining appellate points were deemed without merit.

criminal lawprocedure

In Peters v. State, the appellant pleaded guilty to dealing in stolen property and was ordered as a condition of probation to pay restitution to victims of underlying burglaries based on the victims' own loss assessments. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, reversed the restitution order. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to show the proportion of losses attributable to the appellant's offense rather than the burglar's separate actions, the state failed to establish fair market value of the property at the time of theft as required by statute, and there was inadequate evidence regarding the appellant's ability to pay.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a hardware corporation and its officers suing a former employee and a customer, alleging that the defendants conspired to damage the business by soliciting customers for a competing venture and making false statements about the plaintiffs' competence and service while the employee was still working there. The amended complaint included three counts: civil conspiracy, breach of employment contract, and trade libel or slander. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, but the appellate court affirmed only as to the contract count, which lacked sufficient allegations of a specific agreement, and reversed as to the conspiracy and slander counts. The court reasoned that an employee owes a duty of good faith to the employer, that the alleged agreement to breach that duty and publish defamatory statements about the business satisfied the elements of civil conspiracy, and that the false statements prejudicial to the plaintiffs' trade stated a claim for damages.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability