In Adonel Concrete Corp. v. Furshman, No. 3D25-0132 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026), the court found there was a valid settlement agreement. Although the mutual general release was unsigned, the parties had agreed to essential terms. D manifested their assent by not objecting to a settlement confirmation email, mailing a check for the negotiated amount, and replying “ok, thanks, will have to you tomorrow” in response to an email with the proposed release. D’s testimony as to their subjective intent and state of mind did not overcome objective external signs.
In Vera v. Parkwood Condominium Association, No. 3d24-2149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026), P’s transient foreign substance claim failed because D was not in possession or control of the premises. P slipped on wastewater in her own condominium. Although D was responsible for the condominium’s sanitary pipes, P was responsible for wastewater pipes in her own condo. P bore the burden of demonstrating the wastewater was caused by the sanitary pipes rather than her own pipes, which she failed to sustain.
In Miami Beach Healthcare Group v. Donoway, No. 4D2025-3177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026), the court found Broward county was not the correct venue because the claim accrued in Miami-Dade county. P was suing D for revocation of his medical privileges. A tort claim accrues where the last event necessary to make the defendant liable for the tort took place. All the conduct which would make D liable, including P’s treatment of patients, the hospital’s investigation, the peer review, and the revocation of P’s privileges, occurred at the hospital in Miami-Dade County.
In Castaneda v. Portfolio Recovery Ass., No. 4D2025-2456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026), the court set aside a default judgment finding substitute service was not valid where served on a non-resident at D’s address. The person served testified they never resided at the address and were only visiting their grandmother. The default judgment was void for lack of proper service.
In Griffin v. Aden, No. 25-10929 (U.S. 11th Cir. 2026), the court found no qualified immunity for an officer who detained P without allowing her to cover her nude body for a prolonged period for no legitimate reason. Bodily privacy is a well established constitutional right of which any reasonable officer would be aware. P was given only an ill-fitting rain jacket to cover herself during a prolonged detention which exposed her genitals to her minor children and to the general public. A supervising officer who prepared the search warrant was entitled to qualified immunity because he had limited involvement with the nude detention and P was covered by a bedsheet when he later read the search warrant to her.
In Bedgood v. Waste Mngt, No. 25-12372 (U.S. 11th Cir. 2026), the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of D finding no reasonable juror could find that P’s termination was due to his disability rather than his multiple unexplained absences. P had obstructive sleep apnea which caused persistent drowsiness. D granted P medical leave for 2 months. Following the expiration of leave, P missed 5 shifts, 4 of which with no notice or explanation and was terminated. P offered no evidence of discriminatory intent and testified he had no evidence that his sleep apnea might have played a role in D’s decision to terminate him.
We hope this information has been helpful. Let us know if you have any questions, or would like to discuss further by contacting ALevy@LevyandLevyLaw.com, or calling (813) 259-5389.
