“Our appellate attorneys have a commitment to thoroughness, accuracy, a clear writing style and professionalism in written and oral presentations to the courts of appeals.”
The Appellate group has a depth of experience and an established reputation for excellence in the Florida appellate courts and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Our appellate attorneys have a commitment to thoroughness, accuracy, a clear writing style and professionalism in written and oral presentations to the courts of appeals.
Members of the Appellate practice are adept at quickly evaluating cases in any substantive practice area at the pretrial, trial, or post-trial stage to assist litigators with decision-making, procedural questions, research, and drafting. They are available to partner with other Broad and Cassel attorneys, spanning practice groups and office locations.
Chair Beverly Pohl has been certified in Appellate Practice by The Florida Bar Board of Legal Specialization and Education since 2002, is a Fellow in the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers and is recognized by her peers and colleagues as an expert with good judgment. She was named Fort Lauderdale Lawyer of the Year in Appellate Practice for 2017 by Best Lawyers in America.
While the majority of the firm’s appellate cases involve commercial litigation, health law, banking, and probate issues, the Appellate group is ready to handle all types of state and federal litigation that leads to an appeal. Additionally, our Tallahassee attorneys are situated in the heart of state government, uniquely suited to handle the variety of cases prompted by and involving government legislative and administrative actions.
A selection of recent experience includes:
- Representation of MSP Recovery: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of MSP Recovery in seven consolidated cases under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act of 1980, The statute creates a cause of action to seek double damages from a primary payer when Medicare has made conditional payments that should have been paid by the primary payer. This case clarified that PIP insurers (and other insurers) have a demonstrated responsibility to pay claims as a primary payer simply by virtue of their insurance contract with a Medicare enrollee. (MSP Recovery v. Allstate, 835 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2016)
- Representation of Vital Pharmaceuticals: After notice and hearing, the trial court granted a temporary injunction against former employees of Vital Pharmaceuticals, but did not require a bond. The injunction was soon dissolved, and that order was affirmed on appeal without a written decision. Thereafter, the wrongfully enjoined employee/defendants sought and were awarded their attorneys’ fees as damages. On appeal by Vital Pharmaceuticals, the Fourth DCA reversed after oral argument. The court held that the injunction bond required by rule 1.610(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is the sole source of any damages for a wrongful injunction. This decision demonstrates the importance—to both sides—of an injunction bond. (Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Professional Supplements, LLC, No. 4D15-1123)
- Representation of Global Quest, LLC: Global Quest purchased a new mega-yacht that suffered from multiple stability, electrical, and other structural defects when it was delivered, making it unsuitable for the desired use as a trans-Atlantic vessel. The district court granted summary judgment to the seller and manufacturer on almost all claims, focusing on waivers and disclaimers in the purchase and sale agreement, and refusing to give effect to a limited warranty. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the district court had misapplied Florida law governing fraud claims, and had misapplied the law governing warranty claims. The case was remanded for trial. (Global Quest v. Horizon Yachts, 11th Cir. No. 15-10713)
- Representation of The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co.: After the condominium project contractor prevailed on all claims following trial, the developer appealed, but Whiting-Turner successfully argued that no cause of action was available under section 553.84, Florida Statutes, and that the developer had not proven causation as required under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. In addition, the appellate court held that Whiting-Turner’s counterclaims had been dismissed prematurely, and reversed that ruling. (Maysville, Inc. v. Whiting-Turner Contr. Co., 167 So. 3d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)