Jiminez v. Faccone
98 So. 3d 621
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Faccone estate sued Jiminez for personal injuries from a rear-end collision allegedly caused by Jiminez in a rain-dark condition at an intersection; a van in front of Jiminez allegedly swerved and blocked the Faccones’ car, which may have been improperly illuminated, with dispute over lights/flashers.
- Before trial, Faccones moved for summary judgment on liability; the trial court granted it, effectively absolving Jiminez of fault.
- Also before trial, Faccones sought summary judgment on whether Jiminez could raise the permanent-injury threshold defense under Florida no-fault law; the court granted this, barring the threshold defense.
- Trial occurred with stipulations: verdicts attributed percentages of negligence to Jiminez for Rita Faccone and George Faccone; both Faccones were found to have no permanent injury; jury awards included unusually large loss-of-consortium damages.
- After trial, Faccones moved for attorneys’ fees under settlement proposals and for costs; the trial court awarded fees and costs, which are challenged on appeal; the appellate court reverses these rulings and remands for a new trial, deeming summary-judgment errors material.
- Ms. Faccone (Estate) later passed away after the accident but before trial, with substitution properly effected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability summary judgment proper? | Jiminez contends there were material fact disputes. | Faccones argue no factual dispute supports reversal. | Reversed; genuine issues of material fact existed; jury should decide liability. |
| No-fault threshold defense proper? | Jiminez preserves Florida no-fault defense via Illinois policy applying Florida law. | Faccones contend Illinois policy does not trigger Florida threshold defense. | Reversed; remand to allow threshold defense if applicable under the Illinois policy interpretation. |
| Attorneys’ fees and costs proper? | Fees/taxes should reflect trial-court errors in grant of summary judgments. | Fees/costs legitimate if prevailing under proposals for settlement. | Reversed; remand for new trial and reconsideration of fee/ cost awards. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGill v. Perez, 59 So.3d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (summary judgment reviewed de novo; view in light of doubt on issues)
- Itlat v. Foskey, 28 So.3d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (draw every inference for non-movant in summary judgment)
- Alford v. Cool Cargo Carriers, Inc., 936 So.2d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (rear-driver presumption; rebuttal by evidence of proper care)
- Sistrunk v. Douglas, 468 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (rear-driver burden to rebut presumption)
- Meyer v. Hutchinson, 861 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (policy language incorporating Florida law; no voluminous inclusion)
- Guile v. Boggs, 174 So.2d 26 (Fla.1965) (rear-driver presumption framework)