ROLANDO ANDRADE
v.
SHELL OIL COMPANY, AND SHELL OIL COMPANY/ESIS ETC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact precluded judgment as a matter of law.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when any genuine issue of material fact exists regarding an element of the plaintiff's claim, requiring denial of the motion and proceeding t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRolando Andrade brought a claim against Shell Oil Company and its insurance carrier ESIS. The trial court granted Shell Oil and ESIS's motion for summ…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Worker'S Compensation cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Erik B. Grindal of Law Office of Erik B. Grindal, Miami, Mark A. Touby of Touby, Chait & Sicking, P.L., Coral Gables, and Wendy S. Loquasto of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant. John E. McLain, III, and Elise J. Geibel of Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue, McLain & Mangan, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.