Florida’s Business Courts have been very well-received, and have moved along complex business litigation–but some say there is still room for improvement. A new round of judges is the right time to refine how these courts operate.

Read the full article from Florida Trend Magazine here.

by Cindy Krischer Goodman

The state Legislature — with a push from the Florida Bar — created Florida’s first business court in Orlando in 2004. Since then, that court has handled more than 3,600 cases, and the concept of designating a judge to specialize in business litigation — antitrust suits, franchise cases, intellectual property suits and the like — has spread throughout Florida.

Tampa and Miami created business courts in 2007. A year later, Fort Lauderdale used a slightly different model to create a litigation unit for disputes of more than $150,000. Judges Jeffrey Streitfeld, Jack Tuter and Patti Englander Henning hear cases other business courts in Florida might not, including medical malpractice and product liability suits.

So far the courts have been almost universally well-received. Attorneys say that having a judge with expertise in complex litigation helps move cases through the system faster and has made judicial rulings more consistent. “These cases would have bogged down other divisions,” says Merrick Gross, a commercial litigator at Carlton Fields who spearheaded the Bar’s advocacy for business courts nearly a decade ago. Economic developers, meanwhile, have touted the courts because they say businesses are drawn to areas that show an understanding of business-related litigation.

Lawyers say several factors have left room for improvement, however. “There’s a perception that cases were moving too slowly and decisions were taking longer than hoped to get decided,” says Jim Murphy, an attorney with Shook Hardy & Bacon in Tampa. Murphy says much of the problem has stemmed from funding issues — the business courts, he says, didn’t get the kind of support staff and other help to enable them to work through cases more quickly. “These are complicated cases that require research and active case managing, and the resources we initially had envisioned were not there,” he says. “I think the caseloads were more than anticipated.”

In 2009, there was a moratorium on assigning additional cases to the business court in Tampa, and Murphy served on a committee created to recommend tweaks.

Meet the new judges and read the rest of the article here.

A house panel rejected a bill that would add restrictions in “bad faith” legal disputes with Insurance Companies in Florida.

Read the full Orlando Sentinel story here.

TALLAHASSEE — In a defeat for business groups and the insurance industry, a House panel Thursday narrowly rejected a bill that would add restrictions in “bad faith” legal fights.

The House Civil Justice Subcommittee voted 8-7 against HB 427, which was backed by groups such as the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries of Florida and the National Federation of Independent Business — but was fought by plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Bad-faith lawsuits occur when insurance companies face allegations that they have not properly settled claims. Fred Cunningham, president of the Florida Justice Association trial lawyers’ group, said the state does not have a “crisis in the bad-faith world” that would justify the bill’s additional restrictions.

“This is a draconian solution in search of a problem,” Cunningham told the subcommittee.

But business groups and the insurance industry contend that plaintiffs’ attorneys have found ways to game the legal system, leading to bad-faith cases that can result in large settlements or costly trials.

“All we want out of this bill, all we’re looking for, is fair rules to play by,” said Richard Clark, who runs a Jacksonville janitorial company and is chairman of NFIB in Florida.

The bill drew opposition from Democratic and Republican lawmakers. Voting against it were Reps. Joseph Abruzzo, D-Wellington; Mack Bernard, D-West Palm Beach; Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach; Shawn Harrison, R-Tampa; Marty Kiar, D-Davie; Jose Oliva, R-Miami Lakes; Darren Soto, D-Orlando; and Richard Steinberg, D-Miami Beach.

Supporting the bill were sponsor Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples; subcommittee Chairman Eric Eisnaugle, R-Orlando; Rep. Bill Hager, R-Boca Raton; Rep. Larry Metz, Yalaha; Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood; Rep. Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland; and Rep. Mike Weinstein, R-Jacksonville.

After the vote, Gaetz offered a procedural move that could allow the bill to be heard again in the subcommittee. The Senate version of the bill (SB 1224) has not been considered in committees.

The bills would add restrictions in what are known as “third-party” bad faith cases. Such a case, for example, could start with an insurance-company policyholder getting sued by another person because of an injury. During a trial, the policyholder then could be found liable for money above the limits of the insurance policy.

If the policyholder or the injured person thinks the insurance company failed to properly settle the case, a bad-faith lawsuit could result to try to force the insurer to pay the damages.

The bills call for adding restrictions, such as a 60-day notice period before a bad-faith lawsuit could be filed. An insurer would be shielded from a bad-faith case if it decided during that period to pay the requested amount or the policy limits.

Read the rest of the story here.