Mark Hicks selected for 2011 edition of The Best Lawyer in America.

Partner Mark Hicks has been selected by his peers for inclusion in the 2011 edition of The Best Lawyer in America in the practice areas of Appellate Law and Commercial Litigation. Mr. Hicks is one of a distinguished group of attorneys who have now been listed in Best Lawyers for twenty years or longer. Best Lawyer is based upon peer-review surveys of more than 2.8 million confidential evaluations by top attorneys

Mark Hicks, Cindy Ebenfeld and Dinah Stein recognized as "Top Lawyers" in South Florida for 2011.

Mark Hicks, Cindy Ebenfeld and Dinah Stein were recognized by the 2011 South Florida Legal Guide as "Top Lawyers" in South Florida. Mr. Hicks was recognized in the areas of Appellate Practice and Insurance Defense, Ms. Ebenfeld in the areas of Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Litigation, and Ms. Stein in the area of Appellate Practice.  

Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein Partners recognized as "Legal Elite" for 2011.

Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A. partners Irene Porter, Cindy Ebenfeld and Dinah Stein were listed in the 2011 Florida Trend "Florida Legal Elite" edition, which recognized the top 1,352 members of the Florida Bar for 2011. Ms. Porter and Ms. Ebenfeld were recognized in the category of Insurance, and Ms. Stein was recognized in the category of Appellate Practice. 

Steven H. Preston named partner.

The firm is pleased to announce that Mr. Preston has been made a partner in the firm. The firm is confident that Mr. Preston will advance the firm's interests and his career. . 

Four Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein Partners named Florida "Super Lawyers" for 2010.

Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein Recognized as a Top South Florida Law Firm for Hiring and Promoting Women

Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A was recognized in the January 29, 2008, Daily Business Review as one of the top three law firms in South Florida in its rate of hiring and promoting female attorneys.  Previously, HPE&S was recognized in the January 29, 2007 Daily Business Review as the top law firm in South Florida in its hiring and promotion of female attorneys, from a survey of approximately 80 South Florida law firms.

Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein retained by Fortune 500 Companies

Fortune 500 giant Philip Morris, USA has recently retained Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A. to represent it in trial support and appellate matters that are being defended in Florida.  HPE&S will also be providing trial and appellate support to tobacco company Philip Morris in Howard A. Engle, et al. vs. Liggett Group, Inc., et al., in individual suits filed by plaintiffs in Florida.

OTHER HONORS / PUBLICATIONS

Dinah Stein was published in the Spring 2010 edition of Trial Advocate Quarterly for her article Florida's "Three Strikes" Legislation: A Defense Perspective.

Mark Hicks has been recognized in "The Best Lawyers in America" for 2009 in the area of Appellate Law, and has been listed in "Best Lawyers" for the last 20 years. "Best Lawyers" has been publishing its list for more than twenty-five years.

The Daily Business Review, a preeminent daily newspaper that covers business and law in South Florida, recognized Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein attorneys Mark Hicks and Dinah Stein as two of South Florida's three "Most Effective Lawyers" once in the last 3 years in the area of appellate practice for their work in reversing one of Florida's largest individual verdicts in Sta-Rite Industries v. Lewis J. Levey, personal representative of the estate of Lorenzo Peterson. In Sta-Rite Industries, Mr. Hicks and Ms. Stein, on behalf of their client, a pool pump manufacturer, obtained a reversal of a judgment based on a jury verdict of more than $104 million in this products liability action.

PROMINENT HPE&S APPELLATE DECISIONS: LAST SEVERAL YEARS

Third District Issues Decision on Medical Malpractice Cap: Weingrad v. Miles, 29 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)

In a significant decision impacting judgments in medical malpractice cases, HPE&S represented the defendant in one of Florida's only appellate decisions addressing the applicability of the 2004 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions. The Miles had sued Dr. Weingrad for medical malpractice and were awarded a verdict of $1,516,104, which included $1,500,000 in non-economic damages. After the verdict, the defense moved to limit the damages pursuant to Florida Statute section 766.118, which imposes a cap of $500,000 on noneconomic damages for non-catastrophic injuries. The trial court refused to cap the damages, holding that because Mrs. Miles' injury occurred prior to the enactment of the caps statute, the statute could not be retroactively applied to plaintiffs' claims. Defendant appealed that decision to the Third District Court of Appeal.

During the pendency of the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued an opinion holding that the caps statute may not be applied to actions that accrued prior to its enactment. However, on March 3, 2010, the Third District issued an opinion disagreeing with the Fourth District and holding that the caps statute can be applied to claims that accrued prior to the enactment of the statute, and ordering the trial court to limit the Miles' noneconomic damages to $500,000.

Judgment of $3,678,827 Affirmed in Case Brought by Bank Against Fidelity Insurer: St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v. Coconut Grove Bank, --- So.3d ----, 2009 WL 2871604 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)

In 2003, the plaintiff, Coconut Grove Bank, whom HPE&S represented as appellate counsel, discovered that a 14-year employee who had recently left the bank's employ had engaged in a massive kick-back scheme wherein he had improperly issued hundreds of loans for used cars in exchange for cash payments from the car dealers, resulting in multi-million dollar losses to the Bank. A months-long investigation revealed that the loans he had approved as a loan officer were so substandard that a large amount were virtually "destined to fail." Coconut Grove Bank sought indemnification from the defendant, St. Paul, which had issued a fidelity bond covering losses resulting from employee dishonesty. After St. Paul refused to pay, the Bank brought an action and recovered a verdict of $3,678,827. St. Paul appealed, asserting that a number of coverage defenses constituted grounds for reversal. The Third District affirmed the jury's verdict in all respects, holding that the jury was permitted to find that a termination clause covering prior dishonest acts did not apply, that the methodology used by the Bank's expert to calculate damages was proper, and that the trial court properly instructed the jury as to the meaning of fraudulent and dishonest acts

Limitation on Judgment of $30,990,161.10 affirmed: Lee Memorial Health System v. Edwards, 22 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (table)

Plaintiffs obtained a verdict of $30,990,161.10 against Lee Memorial Hospital in a medical malpractice action. After the verdict, the hospital moved to limit the judgment based on Florida Statute section 768.28, Florida's waiver of sovereign immunity statute. Plaintiffs contended that the hospital board had become sufficiently independent from the county commission so as to cause it to lose its status as a state entity and thus the protections of sovereign immunity. The trial court found that the hospital was protected by sovereign immunity, and plaintiffs appealed this ruling. HPE&S represented the hospital on appeal, contending in part that the hospital had not lost its status as an arm of the state. The Second District Court of Appeal agreed and affirmed the trial court's ruling that the hospital's liability would be limited to $200,000 pursuant to section 768.28.

Judgment on $104 Million Verdict Reversed: Sta-Rite Industries, Inc. v. Levey, 909 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)

The plaintiff, Lorenzo Peterson, obtained a verdict against Sta-Rite, a pool pump manufacturer, in excess of $104 million for catastrophic brain damages Peterson received when his hand became caught in the suction of a pool drain, trapping him underwater for 12 minutes. Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein represented Sta-Rite on appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal, which reversed the judgment entered on the jury verdict and ordered a new trial. The Third District held in part that the trial court improperly prevented Sta-Rite from asserting the comparative fault of non-parties when it artificially divided the single occurrence into separate accidents, and that the evidence did not support the jury's damages award of $104,409,053.20. The Florida Supreme Court declined to review the Third District's decision.

Judgment on $83 Million Verdict Reversed: Palmas Y Bambu, S.A. v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, 881 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), Rehearing denied May 26, 2004, Review denied February 9, 2005

Plaintiffs, two Costa Rican nurseries who alleged damages from using Benlate, a fungicide produced by DuPont, obtained a jury verdict of $83 million against DuPont in a products liability and RICO action. Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, represented DuPont in an appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal, which reversed the jury verdict in its entirety and also held that DuPont was entitled to a directed verdict on the nurseries' RICO claims. The Florida Supreme Court declined to review the Third District's decision.

Judgment of $19,214,689.63 Affirmed: Superior Construction Co. v. Brock, 445 F.3d 1334, 2006 A.M.C. 1038 (11th Cir. 2006)

Plaintiffs were seven boat passengers who were injured when the pleasure boat on which they were riding allided with a stationary barge being used by Defendant Superior Construction Company on a bridge construction project. Superior appealed from a total judgment of $19,214,689.63 in economic and noneconomic damages entered in favor of the plaintiffs. Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein represented six of the seven plaintiffs in Superior's appeal to the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding in part that the mooring of the barge constituted an obstruction of navigation in violation of the federal statute prohibiting obstructions of navigable waters. The appellate court also agreed that the boat driver's legal intoxication could not have been the cause of allision with barge, and that the damages awards were not clearly erroneous.

Judgment on $2.7 Million Verdict Reversed: Kohler Co. v. Marcotte, 907 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005

The plaintiff obtained a $2.7 million verdict against Kohler Co., the manufacturer of a lawnmower engine, on behalf of a child whose hand was injured when it came into contact with the engine. Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein represented Kohler in an appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal, which reversed the judgment entered on the verdict and held that Kohler was entitled to a judgment in its favor as a matter of law. The Florida Supreme Court declined to review the Third District's decision.

$5.6 Million Judgment Reversed: TICO v. Schonning, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D975 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)

In this insurance coverage and bad faith action, the trial court struck the defendant insurers' pleadings for alleged discovery misconduct and entered a judgment against the defendants in the amount of $5,610,900. Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein represented the insurers in an appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal, which reversed the judgment entered by the trial court, holding that trial court had abused its discretion in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the alleged discovery abuses

Summary Judgment Affirmed in Action Involving Multi-Million Dollar Trust: Bisson v. de Arellano, 909 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)

Lisette Arrellano Bisson had sued her mother and trustees of certain trusts established by her grandmother, alleging that she was wrongly deprived of a multi-million dollar inheritance from her grandmother. The trial court awarded summary final judgment to the mother, and the granddaughter appealed. Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein represented Appellee Manuel Jorge Cutillas in the granddaughter's appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the entry of summary final judgment and held that the granddaughter failed to establish that her mother deprived the granddaughter of an inheritance. The Florida Supreme Court declined to review the Third District's decision.

Summary Judgment Affirmed on $6 Million Consent Judgment: Lamar v. RLI Insurance Co., 905 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)

The personal representative of a judgment creditor's estate sued RLI Insurance Co., the judgment debtor's personal umbrella liability insurer, to collect a $6 million consent judgment arising out of a slip and fall accident at an apartment complex owned and managed by the debtor's companies. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of RLI, and the personal representative appealed. Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein represented RLI in the appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the summary judgment in favor of RLI, holding that the landlord's commercial general liability policy covering the landlord's owner as an additional insured was not a "personal liability policy" within the meaning of the owner's personal umbrella liability policy. Because the personal umbrella liability policy excluded coverage for injuries arising out of business pursuits or business or rental properties unless covered by the underlying primary policies, the Third District agreed that there was no coverage.

Judgment on $2,750,000 Verdict Reversed: Posner v. Walker, 930 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)

An orthopedic surgeon and his professional association were sued by the surviving husband and son of a former patient, who contended that the doctor's treatment of the patient for chronic pain made it foreseeable that she would become addicted to prescription narcotics, obtain a fatal dosage of narcotics from another physician, and accidentally overdose on those drugs. A jury awarded the plaintiffs $2.75 million, and Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein represented the defendants in an appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal. The Third District reversed the judgment in its entirety, holding that the defendants were entitled to a judgment in their favor as a matter of law based upon the plaintiffs' failure to establish any causal link between their allegations of negligence and the patient's death.

Issue of First Impression in Workers' Compensation Case: Murillo v. Tri-State Employment Services, 925 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)

The First District, for the first time in a Florida reported decision, upheld an award of attorney's fees against a claimant's attorney in a workers' compensation action for frivolously continuing proceedings against the wrong insurance carrier, which was Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, P.A 's client. The First District further ruled that the lower tribunal maintained jurisdiction over the carrier's attorney's fees claim, even after the claimant dismissed the carrier from the proceedings.

HICKS, PORTER, EBENFELD & STEIN - TRIAL NEWS

In Great American Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 574 F.Supp.2d 1294 (S.D. Fla. 2008), HPE&S obtained a Final Judgment on July 7, 2008 in favor of our client, National Union, and against Great American, requiring Great American to reimburse National Union for (1) the $3,125,000 that National Union contributed toward an underlying settlement on and (2) the prejudgment and post-judgment interest thereon. In addition to this judgment entered in HPE&S' client's favor on the counterclaim that we filed on their behalf, we also prevailed on summary judgment on the main claim. The main claim by Great American asserted that it was entitled to reimbursement for its $1,125,000 contribution to the same underlying settlement. The legal issues involved the priorities of various layers of insurance coverage and whether a general contractor was an additional insured under the National Union policy issued to a subcontractor.

In Travelers v. Seitlin & Company, Case No. 04-18392 CA 15 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 2006), following a bench trial, the circuit court found in favor of HPE&S' client and awarded it $1 million, plus pre-judgment interest of nearly $250,000, on claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and negligence. HPE&S represented an insurance carrier that had paid $1 million to settle an underlying personal injury action due to the defendant insurance agency's failure to disclose an automobile accident before adding hired and non-owned auto excess coverage to a commercial policy.

In Madey v. Procida Tile, et. al., Case No. 05-027989 PTT (Fla. DOAH OJCC 2006), following a two-and-a-half day trial, the Judge of Compensation Claims found in favor of HPE&S' client, holding that it had no liability and that another entity was solely liable for the claimant's damages of approximately $1 million plus attorney's fees and costs in excess of $100,000.