Stetson University College of Law
Doctor of Jurisprudence/Juris Doctor
2013
University of South Florida
Biomedical Science
2010
Mark L. Levine Award – 2013
William F. Blews Pro Bono Service Award – 2013
2022: APEX ROOFING AND RESTORATION, LLC a/a/o James Derrick, Appellant,v.STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee 343 So.3d 1223District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District In the case of Apex Roofing and Restoration, LLC v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, Apex appealed a final judgment in favor of State Farm regarding a first-party bad faith claim. The dispute arose after Apex, as the assignee of policy benefits from the homeowner, alleged that State Farm had underpaid a claim for roof damage caused by wind and hail. After Apex submitted an estimate exceeding the amounts State Farm had previously paid, Apex filed a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) accusing State Farm of bad faith handling of the claim. State Farm did not make any further payments during the statutory 60-day cure period but invoked the appraisal process, which eventually resulted in an additional payment. The trial court granted summary judgment for State Farm on two grounds: It found that the 60-day cure period was “tolled” when State Farm invoked the appraisal process, and State Farm’s payment of the appraisal award within that period cured any bad faith claim. The court also concluded that Apex’s CRN did not meet the statutory requirement to state the facts and circumstances of the alleged violation with sufficient specificity. Our firm appealed the trial court’s decision and on appeal, the court reversed the trial court’s decision on both grounds. First, the appellate court held that invoking the appraisal process does not toll the 60-day cure period under the statute. Second, the court found that Apex’s CRN, which detailed how State Farm had provided lowball estimates and delayed the process, met the statutory specificity requirements. As a result, the final summary judgment in favor of State Farm was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
2024: Timothy GIBSON, Appellant, v. STAR COLLISION AND TOWING, LLC, Appellee 381 So.3d 690 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District) In the case of Timothy Gibson v. Star Collision and Towing, Gibson (our client) challenged the county court’s order that vacated a default judgment and quashed service of process. The case arose after Star Collision towed Gibson’s vehicle without consent, and Gibson filed a lawsuit to recover the $215 he paid to regain possession, plus court costs and attorney’s fees. When Star Collision failed to appear, a default judgment was entered, awarding Gibson $215 in damages, $165 in costs, and $9,485 in attorney’s fees. Later, Star Collision moved to vacate the default judgment, claiming it had never been properly served. The return of service indicated that a process server delivered the complaint to a “William Kleet,” who was mistakenly identified as the owner of Star Collision. However, affidavits from Star Collision representatives argued that no one by that name worked at the company, and the actual owner, “William Klee,” had not been served. The county court sided with Star Collision, finding the return of service facially invalid due to the misspelling of Klee’s name, and quashed the service, setting aside the default judgment. Upon appeal, the court reversed the county court’s decision. It held that the return of service met the necessary statutory requirements, as it included the person’s name and other identifying information. The appellate court noted that Star Collision’s arguments concerning the description of the person served went to the accuracy of the return, not its validity. Therefore, Star Collision failed to meet the burden of proving the service was invalid. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including an evidentiary hearing to assess the credibility of the witnesses.
2024: APEX ROOFING AND RESTORATION, LLC a/a/o Nancy Forde, Petitioner, v. SECURITY FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. 386 So.3d 655 In the case of Apex Roofing and Restoration, LLC v. Security First Insurance Company, our firm successfully petitioned the court to quash a lower court’s order that compelled the disclosure of sensitive business information. This case stemmed from a dispute in which the insurance carrier, Security First, underpaid the replacement cost value of a roof Apex replaced. Acting as the assignee of the homeowner’s policy benefits, Apex sued Security First for breach of contract, seeking the full payment owed under the policy. During the litigation, Security First requested various documents, including communications with subcontractors, bids, invoices, and other financial records related to the roof replacement. Apex objected, asserting that the requested materials were protected as trade secrets, which included proprietary pricing methods and business practices. Despite these objections, the lower court ordered Apex to produce the documents without conducting an in camera review to determine if the trade secret claims were valid. Our firm argued that the court had a duty to protect sensitive business information and that an evidentiary hearing or in camera inspection was necessary before compelling disclosure. The appellate court agreed with us, ruling that the trial court had failed to follow proper legal procedures and quashed the order. This decision reinforces the protection of trade secrets and underscores the importance of safeguarding contractors’ rights in disputes where insurance carriers underpay claims.