Appellate Case Updates

This collection features selected Florida state court appellate opinions and published federal court decisions, reviewed and analyzed by Cole, Scott & Kissane's appellate attorneys.

Safeco Ins. v. Locklair, M.D. Fla. (2026)
Insurance / Statutory Bad Faith

Holding
An insurer's affirmative policy-limits tender satisfied Florida Statutes § 624.155(4)(a) because proof of mailing established tender, despite plaintiff's counsel denying receipt of the settlement check. Including a proposed release did not invalidate the tender under the circumstances presented.

Discussion
In a declaratory judgment action, Safeco sought a determination that it had complied with Florida's statutory tender provision, which provides a 90-day period for qualifying liability insurers to tender the applicable policy limits or the amount demanded.

Safeco issued a check for its $10,000 bodily injury liability limit and sent it to the claimant's counsel by UPS. Although delivery records showed the package was delivered, counsel denied receiving the check. Safeco also included a proposed release and invited counsel to suggest modifications.

The court granted summary judgment for Safeco, finding that issuing and sending the check established tender despite the dispute over receipt. The court further concluded that the proposed release did not invalidate the tender because payment was not conditioned on the claimant signing it.

Practical Implications

• Tender documentation: Evidence of issuing and sending a policy-limits payment can be important in establishing compliance with statutory tender requirements.
• Bad-faith evaluation: The decision illustrates the distinction between an unconditional tender accompanied by a proposed release and a payment conditioned on execution of a release.

Santos v. Western Funding, Fla. 3d DCA (2026)
Civil Procedure / Relief from Dismissal

Holding
The appellate court reversed an order vacating a dismissal for lack of prosecution because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate due diligence in seeking relief 48 days after dismissal, even though the original dismissal was entered in error.

Discussion
The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's case for lack of prosecution despite timely activity in the court record. Forty-eight days later, the plaintiff moved under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1) to set aside the dismissal, arguing that the court had mistakenly overlooked that activity.

The trial court acknowledged its error and granted relief. On appeal, the Third District agreed that the court's mistake could be addressed under Rule 1.540(b)(1), but concluded that the plaintiff had not demonstrated the required due diligence in seeking relief.

The appellate court explained that although the rule permits certain motions within one year, they must also be filed within a reasonable time. Because the plaintiff offered no explanation for the 48-day delay, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the dismissal.

Practical Implications

• Procedural deadlines: Relief from an erroneous dismissal is not automatic; parties must demonstrate due diligence in seeking to correct the error.
• Litigation management: Prompt action following an adverse order can be critical, even when the underlying ruling was mistaken.

Broward Care v. Shook, Fla. 4th DCA (2026)
Punitive Damages / Pleading Requirements

Holding
The appellate court reversed an order permitting the plaintiff to add punitive damages claims because the proposed amended complaint was not attached to the motion and was filed only seven days before the hearing, contrary to Rule 1.190's procedural requirements.

Discussion
The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to assert punitive damages claims. The defendants appealed, arguing that the plaintiff had not complied with the procedural requirements governing such amendments.

The Fourth District reversed, explaining that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190 requires a proposed amended pleading to be attached to the motion and served at least 20 days before the hearing. The plaintiff had not attached the proposed complaint to the motion and filed it only seven days before the hearing.

Practical Implications

• Punitive damages exposure: Compliance with procedural requirements is an important consideration when a plaintiff seeks to assert a punitive damages claim.
• Defense strategy: The timing and completeness of proposed amendments should be evaluated before hearings on motions to add punitive damages claims.

Allen et al. v. Medical Defendants, Fla. 4th DCA (2026)
Civil Procedure / Pleading Sufficiency

Holding
The appellate court affirmed dismissal with prejudice of a fourth amended complaint that failed to comply with Florida pleading requirements and the trial court's prior directions, despite multiple opportunities to correct the deficiencies.

Discussion
The case involved 41 plaintiffs who brought claims against medical providers arising from alleged improper medical treatment associated with earlier personal injury lawsuits.

The litigation involved numerous defendants and causes of action. After repeated unsuccessful amendments, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint spanning 1,492 pages and containing 7,803 paragraphs. The complaint asserted nine causes of action against 22 defendants.

The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the allegations improperly combined claims against different defendants and failed to identify the specific conduct supporting each claim.

The Fourth District affirmed, concluding that the complaint failed to satisfy Florida's requirement for a short and plain statement of the ultimate facts supporting relief. The court also emphasized the plaintiffs' repeated opportunities to correct the pleading deficiencies.

Practical Implications

• Complex claims: Multiple plaintiffs, defendants, and causes of action do not eliminate the requirement for clearly stated and properly organized allegations.
• Litigation costs: Persistent pleading deficiencies may support dismissal and limit the time and expense associated with defending improperly structured claims.
• Procedural strategy: The decision illustrates how repeated failures to comply with pleading requirements may ultimately result in dismissal with prejudice.