This summary highlights recent Florida state appellate decisions and published federal court opinions relevant to insurance practitioners throughout Florida.
Enbridge Energy v. State of Michigan
U.S. Supreme Court (2026) – Civil Procedure / Removal
Holding
Equitable tolling cannot be used to extend the 30-day removal deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) even though the deadline is not jurisdictional. The result was to remand the case to state court.
Discussion
For a variety of arguably equitable reasons, the defendant did not remove the case to federal court until more than two years after the suit was filed. The plaintiff moved to remand and argued that removal was untimely under § 1446(b)’s 30-day deadline. In response, the defendant argued that equitable tolling should apply to justify the delayed removal.
The Court rejected defendant’s argument and held that while the 30-day removal deadline is not jurisdictional, it is still not subject to equitable tolling. The case was, therefore, remanded to state court. The opinion was unanimous.
Practical Implications
- Forum Control: The decision reinforces that opportunities to move a case to federal court are strictly time-limited and cannot always be revived later.
- Claims Handling: Early case assessment should include prompt evaluation of removal options, as missed deadlines can materially impact strategy and cost.
Smith Construction v. Estate of Keathley
Fla. 2d DCA (2026) – Workers’ Compensation Immunity
Holding
A general contractor is not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity where no contract exists with the decedent’s employer. The trial court’s ruling denying immunity was affirmed.
Discussion
The decedent was present on a job site to obtain information for purposes of submitting a bid to a general contractor and fell to his death. The decedent’s estate filed suit against the general contractor, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the contractor’s workers’ compensation immunity defense.
The trial court found that immunity did not apply, and the general contractor appealed. The appellate court affirmed and concluded that no contract existed between the general contractor and the decedent’s employer. The court further clarified that even where a bid has been submitted—or is anticipated—a general contractor is not entitled to immunity unless and until a contract is actually formed.
Practical Implications
- Exposure: Liability protections tied to workers’ compensation immunity may not apply during the contract negotiation phase even when on-site work is required thereby increasing potential exposure.
- Claims Evaluation: The existence and timing of contractual relationships should be closely examined when assessing immunity defenses.
- Risk Awareness: Activities such as site visits or bidding phases can create liability without the protections that attach once a contract is in place.
Hoskins v. Johns
Fla. 2d DCA (2026) – Medical Negligence / Certiorari Review
Holding
Early appellate review was unavailable where a claim was dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiff could not establish irreparable harm.
Discussion
In this medical negligence action, the plaintiff sought early appellate review of an order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss as to one count (Count III), without prejudice. The dismissal required the plaintiff to restart the pre-suit process.
The appellate court dismissed the petition by finding that the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm—a necessary requirement for this type of review. The court emphasized that increased litigation costs and procedural inconvenience, including restarting pre-suit requirements, do not qualify as irreparable harm.
Practical Implications
- Litigation Timeline: Cases may continue at the trial level even after partial dismissals which can delay appellate review.
- Claims Management: Early procedural wins may not resolve exposure and should be evaluated in the context of ongoing litigation activity.
Estate of Graham v. Elks Lodge
Fla. 6th DCA (2026) – Negligent Security
Holding
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling without a written opinion where clarity was sought regarding the duty owed in negligent security cases.
Discussion
The appellate court affirmed the decision without issuing a written opinion. However, a concurring opinion highlighted the ongoing lack of clarity in Florida law regarding the duty owed in negligent security cases. The concurrence noted differing standards applied in other jurisdictions and called for greater guidance from Florida courts.
The decision is also notable because it comes from the Sixth District Court of Appeal which has emphasized that it is not bound by decisions from other DCAs and is approaching legal issues with an independent analytical framework.
Practical Implications
- Exposure Variability: Uncertainty in negligent security standards may lead to inconsistent outcomes depending on jurisdiction.
- Claims Evaluation: Duty and foreseeability analyses may vary, requiring careful, fact-specific assessment in each case.
- Strategic Awareness: Diverging approaches among appellate courts may impact how similar claims are valued and resolved across Florida.
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.
