Affirmative Defense Pleading

125 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Servs., Inc.
  678 So. 2d 1262· Fla.· 1996-07-03 ·cited 120×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant seeking to include a nonparty on a verdict form for apportionment of noneconomic damages under Fabre must plead the nonparty's negligence as an affirmative defense and present evidence of the nonparty's fault at trial. The Court res
• Jarrard v. Assocs. Disc. Corp.
  99 So. 2d 272· Fla.· 1957-12-20 ·cited 50×
  Associates Discount Corporation sought to enforce trust receipts covering automobiles by rejecting Tom Cherry's superior title claim. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly applied estoppel against Cherry because the evidence did not clearly a
• Microsoft Corp. v. Jesse's Computers & Repair, Inc.
  211 F.R.D. 681· M.D. Fla.· 2002-12-09 ·cited 46×
  A copyright misuse affirmative defense must be stricken when the defendant fails to plead it with factual support complying with Rule 8(a) and when, substantively, the defendant fails to establish a nexus between the plaintiff's alleged wrongful conduct and the defendant's infrin
• Fletcher v. Williams
  153 So. 2d 759· Fla. 1st DCA· 1963-05-21 ·cited 45×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's dismissal of a complaint seeking enforcement of an alleged parol agreement whereby the Fletchers promised to gift land to the Fletchers in exchange for care and services. The court held that the statute of frauds is an
• Reliance Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Ill. v. Booher
  166 So. 2d 222· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-07-01 ·cited 44×
  Reliance Mutual Life Insurance Company appeals a declaratory judgment awarding medical expense benefits to Thelma Booher for reconstructive surgery following an automobile accident. The court held that the policy's 52-week time limit for incurring medical expenses means the insur
• Mercy Hosp., Inc. v. Menendez
  371 So. 2d 1077· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-06-12 ·cited 42×
  Mercy Hospital appeals a trial court's decision to deny its motion to limit a medical malpractice judgment to $100,000 under Florida's Medical Malpractice Reform Act. The court holds that a health care provider need not plead the statutory limitation as an affirmative defense; ra
• F.M.W. Props., Inc. v. Peoples First Fin. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  606 So. 2d 372· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-08-12 ·cited 41×
  In this mortgage foreclosure appeal, F.M.W. Properties and Fred Webb challenged summary judgment in favor of Peoples First Financial by claiming an oral agreement that the loan would be renewed at maturity based on property sales, not immediate payment. The court affirmed the sum
• Martin v. Hwy. Equip. Supply Co., Inc.
  172 So. 2d 246· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-02-24 ·cited 40×
  A construction company appealed the dismissal of a complaint alleging an oral agreement to lease equipment with an option to purchase. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the alleged oral contract for the sale of personal property was barred by the statute of frauds.
• Venditti-Siravo, Inc. v. City OF Hollywood
  418 So. 2d 1251· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-09-08 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings because the amended complaint stated a cause of action and the defendant's affirmative defenses were not established as a matter of law from the pleadings.
• State v. The Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. & The Seaboard Air Line Ry.
  67 Fla. 441· Fla.· 1913-12-02 ·cited 30×
  This case concerns the authority of Florida's Railroad Commissioners to order a railroad company to join in the construction of a union passenger station. The court held that the demurrer to the writ of mandamus was improperly filed, as the facts raised by the railroad constitute
• The Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Douville
  57 Fla. 180· Fla.· 1909-01-01 ·cited 30×
  Skinner Manufacturing Company sued E.E. Douville for a real estate broker's commission after Douville allegedly procured a purchaser for the company's timber lands. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the judgment for Douville, holding that a lower court erroneously admitted hears
• Ingraham v. United States
  808 F.2d 1075· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-16 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the Texas statutory limitation on medical malpractice damages is an affirmative defense that must be timely pleaded and was waived by the government in these cases. The court also affirmed the damage awards as not clearly erroneous or excessive.
• Backar v. W. States Producing Co. (now Hytech Energy Corporation) & Wayman W. Buchanan
  547 F.2d 876· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-24 ·cited 29×
  The court held that proceeds from nonrecourse notes were not 'moneys invested' under the commission contract, and that New York's real estate licensing statute did not bar the finder's fee claim because oil and gas leases are personal property under New York law.
• Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Tursi
  729 So. 2d 995· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-03-31 ·cited 28×
  Florida Power & Light Company appeals a jury verdict for the plaintiff following exposure to PCB-contaminated transformer fluid that caused injury to the plaintiff's eye and later a cataract. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's admission of expert testimony on causatio
• City OF Brooksville v. Hernando Cnty.
  424 So. 2d 846· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-12-01 ·cited 27×
  The City of Brooksville appealed a partial summary judgment on liability in a breach of lease case, challenging both the trial court's finding that a statute of limitations was tolled by settlement negotiations and its consideration of untranscribed trial testimony in ruling on s
• Kai Jakobsen v. Mass. Port Auth.
  520 F.2d 810· 1st Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Massachusetts Port Authority waived its defense regarding a statutory limitation on liability by failing to plead it timely, and that sufficient evidence supported a finding of negligence and business invitee status.
• Bilow v. Benoit
  519 So. 2d 1114· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-02-10 ·cited 24×
  Ellen Bilow appealed a trial court's denial of her specific performance claim for a real estate contract after the buyer, Paul Benoit, refused to close due to financing issues. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly relied on unpleaded affirmative d
• Fla. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  763 So. 2d 429· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-06-09 ·cited 23×
  Florida Farm Bureau General Insurance Company appealed the dismissal of its complaint against Insurance Company of North America seeking indemnification and subrogation for a $150,000 settlement paid in a wrongful death case. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that policy
• Tropical Exterminators, Inc. v. Murray
  171 So. 2d 432· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-01-13 ·cited 23×
  A sudden, unforeseeable loss of consciousness negates the element of negligence and is not an affirmative defense that must be explicitly pleaded; it is encompassed within a general denial of negligence. The case is remanded for a new trial on both liability and damages.
• Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Fugate
  313 F.2d 788· 5th Cir.· 1963-01-23 ·cited 22×
  False answers to material questions on an insurance application, specifically regarding hospitalizations for alcoholism, constitute fraud as a matter of law, voiding the policy, even if not explicitly pleaded, provided the issue was tried by implied consent.
• The S. Turpentine Co. v. Douglass
  61 Fla. 424· Fla.· 1911-01-01 ·cited 22×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for the plaintiff in a wrongful death case, finding that the trial court erroneously struck the defendant's "assumption of risk" defense. The court held that the defense, even if imperfectly pleaded, should not have been stricken on m
• Pujals Ex rel. El Rey de Los Habanos v. Garcia
  777 F. Supp. 2d 1322· S.D. Fla.· 2011-03-28 ·cited 20×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative defenses, striking some for legal insufficiency and treating others as specific denials.
• Wooten v. Collins
  327 So. 2d 795· Fla. 3d DCA· 1976-02-03 ·cited 20×
  In this appeal from a jury verdict in an automobile accident case, the court addressed whether a plaintiff must satisfy the No Fault Insurance Act's threshold requirements to maintain a tort action against a defendant. The court reversed the judgment and remanded with directions
• Weekes v. Atl. Nat'l INS. Co.
  370 F.2d 264· 9th Cir.· 1966-12-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a dismissal with prejudice under the single cause of action rule bars another action on the same claim.
• Kaye v. Smitherman
  225 F.2d 583· 10th Cir.· 1955-07-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendants, as fiduciaries in a joint adventure, breached their duty by failing to disclose the acquisition of additional leases within the scope of the adventure, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to their proportionate share of those acquired leases.
• Jack Mann Chevrolet Co. v. Assocs. Inv. Co.
  125 F.2d 778· 6th Cir.· 1942-02-11 ·cited 20×
  A settlement agreement procured by fraud is voidable, not void, and requires affirmative action to rescind; without rescission, it serves as a valid defense to claims arising from the original transaction.
• Healy Tibbitts Constr. Co. v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  679 F.2d 803· 9th Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 17×
  The court held that an insurance policy exclusion for watercraft in the insured's care, custody, or control barred recovery, and failure to plead the exclusion as an affirmative defense did not constitute waiver.
• Richard Derouin & KIM Derouin v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co., LLC
  254 So. 3d 595· Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-08-22 ·cited 16×
  Compliance with the federal face-to-face meeting requirement of 24 C.F.R. § 203.604 is a condition precedent to filing a foreclosure action on an FHA-insured loan. When a mortgagor specifically denies that the mortgagee complied with this requirement, the burden shifts to the mor
• Westwood Chem. Co., Inc. v. Kulick
  656 F.2d 1224· 6th Cir.· 1981-08-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the prior Ninth Circuit decision, interpreting the release agreement, was res judicata and barred Westwood from taking discovery depositions of Dart executives.
• Loureiro v. Pools BY Greg, Inc.
  698 So. 2d 1262· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-07-30 ·cited 15×
  Loureiro sued Pools by Greg for negligence after falling into an uncompleted swimming pool. The trial court erroneously submitted the liability of non-parties to the jury on the verdict form without proper pleading amendments, but because the jury found Pools not negligent, rever
• Hack v. Great Am. Ins. Co.
  175 So. 2d 594· Fla. 3d DCA· 1965-06-01 ·cited 14×
  Plaintiff Hack appealed a summary judgment limiting his medical expense recovery under an auto insurance policy to only bills incurred after an arbitration hearing on uninsured motorist coverage. The court reversed, holding that medical payments coverage and uninsured motorist co
• Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Bieniek
  312 F.2d 365· 3d Cir.· 1962-12-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the insurer's suit to void the policy was timely filed within the incontestability period, and that while an incomplete answer in the application waived the insurer's right to object to that specific answer, it did not waive the right to object to other materi
• The Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Bloedel
  236 So. 3d 1164· Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-01-31 ·cited 10×
  A loan modification agreement, when asserted as an avoidance of liability, is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proven by the defendant. The defendant's failure to plead the modification defense waives it, and the trial court errs in granting involuntary dismissal b
• Kagan v. Garfinkle
  312 So. 2d 778· Fla. 3d DCA· 1975-05-13 ·cited 10×
  A New York real estate broker sued Florida defendants for his share of a real estate commission on a Florida property sale. The trial court dismissed the complaint because the broker was not licensed in Florida, but the appellate court reversed, holding that a foreign broker may
• Moore Int'l Trucks, Inc. v. Foothill Cap. Corp.
  560 So. 2d 1301· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-04-27 ·cited 9×
  Moore International Trucks appeals from a summary judgment finding that defendant Foothill Capital Corporation failed to comply with Florida's motor vehicle lien statute (§713.585) when selling Moore's truck after a lessee defaulted on repair work. The court affirms, holding that
• Barnwell & Hays, Inc. v. Sloan
  564 F.2d 254· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-25 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the defendant's answer sufficiently pleaded the affirmative defense of waiver, and that the alleged modification of the contract did not require consideration.
• Veiock v. Veiock
  391 So. 2d 793· Fla. 1st DCA· 1980-12-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred in setting aside the parties' agreements because the husband failed to plead their unenforceability as a defense and did not prove they were illegal or invalid.
• Midstate Hauling Co., Inc. v. Watson
  172 So. 2d 262· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-02-24 ·cited 8×
  Midstate Hauling Company appealed a chancellor's order requiring it to pay equipment lessees the full amounts due under their contracts, despite Midstate's attempt to enforce forfeiture and non-compete clauses. The court affirmed, holding that Midstate could not unilaterally chan
• United States Rubber Co. v. Lucky Nine, Inc.
  159 So. 2d 874· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-11-19 ·cited 8×
  United States Rubber Company appeals the dismissal of its complaint seeking the balance on an account against Lucky Nine, Inc. and its guarantor Robert Grossman. The court reverses, holding that res judicata cannot be applied at the pleading stage to bar the action, particularly
• Duarte v. Bank OF Haw.
  287 F.2d 51· 9th Cir.· 1961-02-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an appellate court will not consider an issue not raised in the trial court, absent special circumstances, and that the Hawaii Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the diversion of security issue.
• Grover J. Gibbs v. Randolph
  250 F.2d 41· 5th Cir.· 1957-12-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a stipulation of facts allowing credit for payment from another tortfeasor was permissible, even if not affirmatively pleaded, as it effectively amended the pleadings.
• Udell v. Udell
  950 So. 2d 528· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-03-14 ·cited 7×
  Nancy Udell appealed a dissolution of marriage judgment that awarded her ex-husband Glenn a rental value offset for her exclusive use of the marital home. The court reversed, holding that Glenn waived the rental value offset defense by failing to plead it in his responsive pleadi
• Marino v. Otis Eng'g Corp.
  839 F.2d 1404· 10th Cir.· 1988-02-23 ·cited 7×
  The court should reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial due to the cumulative effect of two evidentiary errors at trial.
• Ernestine Patterson v. Matilda Weathers
  476 So. 2d 1294· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-08-29 ·cited 7×
  A prior final judgment and supplemental final judgment quieting title in one party's favor bars a subsequent quiet-title action by the defendant in the prior action, and an appellate court cannot reverse a trial court's judgment based on facts not presented to the trial court.
• Kersey v. City OF Riviera Beach
  337 So. 2d 995· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-07-09 ·cited 7×
  The trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding budgetary restrictions as an affirmative defense when it was not pleaded, and this error prejudiced the appellants.
• Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Lowry Elec. Co., Inc.
  269 So. 2d 738· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-11-28 ·cited 7×
• E & Y Assets, LLC v. Totaram Sahadeo and Phulmatti Sahadeo
  180 So. 3d 1162· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-12-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a foreclosure plaintiff must present competent evidence of the amount owed, and failure to do so warrants dismissal.
• ASH Chem., Inc. v. Dep't OF Env't Reg.
  706 So. 2d 362· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-01-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred by considering fraud as a basis for its judgment when fraud was not pled as an affirmative defense, violating the appellant's due process rights.
• MY PIE Int'l, Inc. v. Debould, Inc.
  687 F.2d 919· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the franchisees were estopped from asserting a violation of the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act, and the exemption obtained was valid for the transaction.
• Mspa Claims 1, LLC v. Covington Specialty Ins. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-04-13 ·cited 5×
  A motion to strike affirmative defenses filed more than 21 days after the responsive pleading is untimely and will be denied, even if the court could consider the defenses sua sponte.