This summary highlights recent Florida state appellate decisions and published federal court opinions relevant to insurance practitioners throughout Florida.
Suzuki v. Winckler
Fla. 5th DCA (2026) – Product Liability / Evidence / Recall Evidence
Holding
Affirmed. The trial court properly admitted evidence of a product recall. The recall was relevant to the plaintiff’s theory of liability, was not unfairly prejudicial, and did not qualify as an inadmissible subsequent remedial measure.
Discussion
In this Florida appellate decision, the plaintiff was injured while operating a Suzuki motorcycle and brought product liability claims against the manufacturer. The claims were tied to a defect that had been the subject of a prior product recall.
At trial, the court allowed evidence of the recall to be presented to the jury over Suzuki’s objection. Suzuki argued that the recall should have been excluded. It contended that the recall was either unfairly prejudicial or barred as a subsequent remedial measure, which is a legal rule that can limit the use of post-incident fixes to prove fault.
The Fifth District rejected those arguments and affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The court found that the recall was directly relevant to the plaintiff’s theory of defect and causation. It also concluded that the evidence did not create unfair prejudice that would outweigh its value to the jury. In addition, the recall did not fall within the scope of the rule excluding subsequent remedial measures under the circumstances presented.
Practical Implications
- Product recalls may be admissible in Florida product liability cases when they are closely tied to the alleged defect. This can increase exposure in claims involving recalled products.
- Arguments that recall evidence is unfairly prejudicial or barred as a remedial measure may not succeed where the recall is central to liability.
- Claims professionals should account for recall history early in evaluation and adjust valuation and defense strategy accordingly.
Karlsson v. Doe
Fla. 6th DCA (2026) – Medical Negligence / Pre-Suit Requirements / Claim Classification
Holding
Reversed. The alleged misconduct arose from the provision of medical care and therefore qualified as a medical malpractice claim. As a result, all claims were subject to Florida’s medical negligence pre-suit requirements, and those that did not comply should have been dismissed.
Discussion
This Florida state court decision addresses how courts classify claims involving alleged misconduct in a medical setting. The plaintiff presented to the emergency department following a hysterectomy with complications involving a catheter. During the evaluation, the plaintiff alleged that a physician performed an inappropriate gynecological examination.
The plaintiff filed suit against multiple physicians and nurses. Some claims proceeded through Florida’s medical malpractice pre-suit process, while others did not. The plaintiff attempted to characterize certain allegations as intentional torts, including sexual assault, in order to avoid the statutory pre-suit requirements that apply to medical negligence claims.
After the trial court denied motions to dismiss, the defendants appealed. The Sixth District focused on the context in which the alleged conduct occurred. The court emphasized that the examination took place in a hospital emergency department during what was represented as a medically necessary evaluation following consultation with a specialist.
Based on those allegations, the court held that the conduct arose from the rendering of medical care or services. That classification brought all claims within Florida’s medical malpractice statutory framework. Because some claims did not comply with the required pre-suit procedures, those claims should have been dismissed.
Practical Implications
- Courts will look to the context of the conduct, not just how a claim is labeled, when determining whether it qualifies as medical negligence.
- Attempts to avoid pre-suit requirements by recharacterizing claims as intentional torts may fail where the conduct arises from medical care.
- Proper pre-suit compliance remains critical in medical malpractice claims and can be dispositive early in litigation.
Teed v. Everest Campus
Fla. 2d DCA (2026) – Workers’ Compensation / Immunity / Contractor Status
Holding
Reversed. The property owner did not qualify as a “contractor” under the workers’ compensation statute. As a result, the property manager was not entitled to horizontal workers’ compensation immunity.
Discussion
In this Florida appellate decision, a property owner retained both a property manager and a separate pool contractor. An employee of the pool contractor was injured and brought a claim against the property manager.
The property manager obtained summary judgment by arguing that it was immune from suit under Florida’s workers’ compensation framework. Specifically, it asserted horizontal immunity, which can extend protection between certain entities involved in the same project when statutory requirements are met.
On appeal, the Second District examined whether the necessary statutory relationship existed. That analysis turned on whether the property owner qualified as a “contractor” under Florida law. The court concluded that the property owner did not meet that definition.
Because the required contractor relationship was not present, the property manager could not claim horizontal workers’ compensation immunity. The appellate court therefore reversed the summary judgment.
Practical Implications
- Workers’ compensation immunity defenses depend heavily on statutory relationships, particularly contractor status.
- Property owners and managers may not qualify for immunity in multi-contractor settings without a true contractor-subcontractor structure.
- Claims involving contractor employees should be closely evaluated for potential gaps in immunity defenses.
Lam v. Modern Tampa Home
Fla. 2d DCA (2026) – Attorney’s Fees / Prevailing Party / Contract Disputes
Holding
Reversed. The homeowners were the prevailing party because they succeeded on the significant issue in the case, even though they recovered only a portion of the damages sought.
Discussion
This Florida appellate decision addresses how courts determine the “prevailing party” for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees. The plaintiffs, homeowners, pursued a contract-based claim and ultimately recovered approximately 18% of the damages they sought at trial. Much of the reduction was due to the rejection of their consequential damages claim.
After trial, both sides sought attorney’s fees. The trial court denied both requests, finding that neither side prevailed.
On appeal, the Second District focused on the primary issue in dispute. The key question in the litigation was which party breached the contract. The jury resolved that issue entirely in favor of the homeowners, and they were awarded damages, even if reduced.
The appellate court held that the amount recovered is not determinative where one party prevails on the significant issue in the case. Because the homeowners succeeded on liability and obtained a damages award, they qualified as the prevailing party and were entitled to seek attorney’s fees.
Practical Implications
- Prevailing party determinations in Florida contract disputes focus on the primary issue in the case, not just the percentage of damages recovered.
- Partial recovery does not preclude a fee award where liability is decided in one party’s favor.
- Fee exposure should be considered in claims evaluation and settlement strategy, even where damages appear limited.
Our team is available to discuss the topics written here and ready to provide additional information contained in this article. Contact us for more information.
