Florida Third District Court Issues Opinion Regarding Sierra Auto Center Vs. Granada Insurance
Targeted News Service
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Sierra Auto Center, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs.
Granada Insurance Company, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the
Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge.
Wolfson Law Firm, LLP, and
Jonah M. Wolfson, for appellants.
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Granada Insurance Company.
GORDO, J.
Sierra Auto Center Miami Beach, LLC appeal a final summary judgment declaring that insurer,
Granada Insurance Company, had no duty to defend or indemnify Sierra in an underlying negligence action arising out of an assault and battery that occurred on its premises based on the policy s express assault and battery exclusion. We have jurisdiction. Fla.
A member of the Bacardí rum family wants to build homes at the Calusa Country Club in West Kendall, Miami, but the golf course may be an endangered bat habitat.
In
Saunders v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Co., a Florida appellate court recently determined whether a faulty workmanship exclusion in a homeowner’s policy applied to a property loss caused by a contractor.
The insured, Veronica Saunders, hired a contractor to install a new addition to her home, which was insured by Florida Peninsula Insurance Co. During the construction process, the contractor took off a portion of the roof and only covered the exposed area with tarps. The home eventually sustained damage from rainfall after the house was left in this condition for several weeks.
Saunders filed a claim with her homeowner’s insurance carrier, Florida Peninsula. The insurer denied the claim because the policy excluded losses caused by “[f]aulty, inadequate[,] or defective … [d]esign, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, [and] compaction.” Following the denial, Saunders filed a declaratory action in Miami-Dade County seeking
[co-author: Shelby Lomax]
This month, a Florida appellate court held that a merchant cash advance (MCA) purchase and sale agreement was not a “disguised loan” and, therefore, was not subject to Florida’s criminal usury statute. MCA purchase and sale agreements, which offer merchants a fast and efficient way to obtain funding for their operations, are not loans. Rather, these agreements constitute the purchase of a merchant’s future receipts by the MCA company. However, some merchants have claimed that MCAs are “disguised loans” subject to their respective states’ usury law. While several states have well-developed case law differentiating loans from the purchase and sale of receivables, Florida suffers from a relative lack of authority on the issue. Fortunately, in
Greenbox Capital was the victor of a major lawsuit argued before Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal that conclusively established the legality of merchant cash advances in the state.
When asked for comment, Greenbox Capital® CEO Jordan Fein said:
“It’s been a long, arduous, and expensive battle over the last few years proving in a court of law that a Merchant Cash Advance is not a loan. Today, we celebrate a win for all Merchant Cash Advance companies in Florida and the entire United States who are dedicated to funding small businesses through ethical practices. Our hard work and commitment to helping small businesses grow was validated and we are thrilled with the final decision of the District Court of Appeal.”