Summarily - A Podcast for Busy Lawyers Robert Scavone Jr.

Co-host Jennifer Opiola joined Robert to review PIP and insurance opinions issued by the Florida DCAs in March.
Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., v. laguna Riviera Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 2D DCA (retroactivity of § 627.714(4)). Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Avril and Romain, 4th DCA (deductible as an affirmative defense). Arway v. Progressive Amer. Ins. Co., 6th DCA (statute of limitations defeated by policy language). Envision Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 3d DCA (exhaustion and bad faith). Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

Equality Florida sued Governor DeSantis et al., challenging H.B. 1557 (the "Don't Say Gay" law). The parties recently settled, and Florida agreed to limit the law's scope in significant ways.

Robert is joined by John C. Quinn, a partner at Kaplan Hecker and Fink, and D. Brandon Trice, counsel at Kaplan Hecker and Fink. John and Brandon were part of a team of lawyers, led by Robbie Kaplan, who, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, represented Equality Florida. 

Documents: 
Second Amended ComplaintOrder Dismissing Second Amended ComplaintSettlement AgreementSummarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or Monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

Co-host Jennifer Opiola joined Robert to review PIP and insurance opinions issued in February, including one dealing with inconsistent verdicts and another about the retroactivity of the pre-suit demand statute under chapter 627.
Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tsirnikas, 2d DCA (inconsistent verdicts); see also Chiarella v. Ford, 4th DCA.Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Peipert, 3d DCA (entitlement to prejudgment interest).Cantens v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 3d DCA (retroactivity of pre-suit demand statute under chapter 627) (certifying conflict with the 6th DCA in Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., which certified conflict with the 4th DCA in Cole v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.); see also Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Grove Isle at Vero Beach Condo. Ass'n, 4th DCA. Taylor v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 5th DCA (private right of action for interest under chapter 627 vs. contractual right to interest; incorporating statutory language in contracts). Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp. 

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

Are you ready for new rule 1.041 (Notice of Limited Appearance), effective April 1? Tune into this episode to learn what you need to know. Robert and Lindsey also cover several opinions from January.
In re: Jane Doe 23-B, 1st DCA (judicial waiver).Tanner v. Dashner, 4th DCA (single-homicide rule; ex post facto).Nelson v. State, 5th DCA (judge's comments at sentencing).Tesla v. Monserratt, 4th DCA (apex doctrine).John Knox Village of Cent. Fla., Inc. v. Est. of Alma Jane Lawrence, 5th DCA (amending to add punitive damages). Zimmerman v. Florida Gaming Control Commission, 5th DCA (agency's obligation to adhere to prior administrative decision). Rule 1.041 (Notice of Limited Appearance). Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or Monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

Co-host Jennifer Opiola joined Robert to review PIP opinions issued in January.
United Auto. Ins. Co. v. ISO Diagnostic Testing, 4th DCA (fee schedule).Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Andre, 4th DCA (setting aside default). State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Matthews, 5th DCA (prejudicial statements and right to fair trial).Sulzer v. Amer. Integrity Ins. Co. of Fla., 6th DCA (retroactivity of pre-suit notice statute; certifying conflict with 4th DCA).Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.   

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.

On Tuesday, February 6th, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Trump and held that the former president is not immune from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office. 
Robert discussed the opinion with constitutional law professor Harold Krent of the Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Summarily is sponsored by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A. Click the BetterHelp link (BetterHelp.com/Summarily) for 10% off your first month of BetterHelp.   

Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues, and rate and review the show.

Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.

Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast’s advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast’s creator is prohibited.