Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), and Other Standard Defenses

Table of contents

(1) Pleading Affirmative Defenses): “In pleading to a preceding pleading a party shall set forth affirmatively accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d)

Supreme Court: Hess v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 175 So.3d 687, 694-95 (Fla. 2015).

First District: Ford Motor Credit Co., LLC v. Parks, 2022 WL 1482387, *5 (Fla. 1st DCA May 11, 2022).

Second District: JAK Cap., LLC v. Adams, 306 So. 3d 1285, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020); Migilazzo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 290 So.3d 577, 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).

Third District: 951 Harbor Drive, LLC v. SD Constr., LLC, 394 So. 3d 690, 695-96 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024); Swedberg v. Goldfinger’s South, Inc., 2022 WL 791024, *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 16, 2022).

Fourth District: MTGLQ Invs., LP v. Leones, 320 So.3d 769, 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Fifth District: Frisbie v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 162 So.3d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Sixth District: Advanced Florida Med. Group, Corp. v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., 364 So. 3d 1131, 1133 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023).

(2) Accord and Satisfaction requires (a) a preexisting dispute between the parties, (b) the parties’ mutual intent to settle the dispute by agreement, and (c) the tender and acceptance of a settlement agreement as full satisfaction and discharge of the parties disputed obligation. Wesolek v. Wesolek, No. 2:19-CV-463-JES-MRM, 2021 WL 2582161, at *6 (M.D. Fla. May 25, 2021); Rocka Fuerta Constr., Inc. v. Southwick, Inc., 103 So. 3d 1022, 1025 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Chassan Professional Wallcovering, Inc. v. Victor Frankel, Inc., 608 So. 2d 91, 93 (Fla. 4th 1992); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), discussed in (1), above; Section 673.3111, Fla. Stat. (Uniform Commercial Code provision governing accord and satisfaction by instrument).

Supreme Court: Jacksonville Elec. Auth. V. Draper’s Egg and Poultry Co., 557 So.2d 1357, 1359 (Fla. 1990).

First District: U.S. v. Morrison, 28 So.3d 94, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

Second District: Wootton v. Iron Acquisitions, LLC, 2022 WL 1395443, *3 (Fla. 2d DCA May 4, 2022).

Third District: United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rivero Diagnostic Ctr., Inc., 327 So.3d 376, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Fourth District: Quintana v. People’s Trust Ins. Co., 335 So.3d 131, 133 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 9, 2022).

(3) Alcohol or Drug Defense: “In any civil action, a plaintiff may not recover any damages for loss or injury to his or her person or property if the trier of fact finds that, at the time the plaintiff was injured: (a) The plaintiff was under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug to the extent that the plaintiff’s normal faculties were impaired or the plaintiff had a blood or breath alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher; and (b) As a result of the influence of such alcoholic beverage or drug the plaintiff was more than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm.” Section 768.36(2), Fla. Stat.; see also Ermini v. Scott, 937 F.3d 1329, 1334 (11th Cir. 2019);

First District: Stricklin v. Allen, 404 So. 3d 598, 601-02 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025); Main St. Entm’t, Inc. v. Guardianship of Faircloth, 2022 WL 390775, *4-5 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 9, 2022).

Third District: Archbishop Coleman F. Carroll High Sch., Inc. v. Maynoli, 30 So.3d 533, 544-45 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

Fourth District: Hetherly v. Sawgrass Tavern Inc., 975 So.2d 1266, 1268 n.4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Fifth District: Kempton v. McComb, 264 So.3d 1180, 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).

(4) Arbitration and Award: The right to compel arbitration is waived when the defendant fails to demand arbitration and instead answers the complaint, even when the right to arbitration is asserted as an affirmative defense. Bared and Co., v. Specialty Maintenance and Construction, Inc., 610 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); AMS Staff Leasing, Inc. v. Taylor, 158 So.3d 682, 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Chaikin v. Parker Waichman LLP, 253 So.3d 640, 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), discussed in (1), above.

Supreme Court: Basulto v. Hialeah Auto., 141 So.3d 1145, 1152 (Fla. 2014).

First District: Fort Walton Rehab. Ctr., LLC v. Estate of Etheleene Galloway Gordon, 2022 WL 1400228, *1 (Fla. 1st DCA May 4, 2022).

Second District: Patterson v. Melman, 398 So. 3d 470, 474-75 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024); Mirro v. Freedom Boat Club, LLC, 328 So.3d 1108, 1110-11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).

Third District: City of Miami v. Fraternal Ord. of Police Lodge #20, 248 So.3d 273, 277-78 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

Fourth District: Palm Court NH, L.L.C. v. Dowe, 336 So.3d 735, 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Fifth District: LEN-CG South, LLC v. Champions Club Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 336 So.3d 1245, 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022).

 

(5) Assumption of the risk precludes recovery when the plaintiff voluntarily consented to exposure to the injury-causing harm. Kuehner v. Green, 436 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1983); see also McNichol v. S. Fla. Trotting Ctr., Inc., 44 So. 3d 253, 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (explaining that “express assumption of the risk totally bars recovery when the injured party consented to a known risk”, and includes “express contracts not to sue for injury . . . as well as . . . where one voluntarily participates in a contact sport.”)(citations omitted)(emphasis added); Vance v. Westfalia Technologies, Inc., No. 8:12–CV–1902–EAK–TGW, 2013 WL 3270414, at *6 (M.D. Fla. June 26, 2013) (clarifying that “Florida courts have abolished implied assumption of the risk as a defense… because Florida Law has merged implied assumption of risk with comparative negligence, but express assumption of the risk remains a valid defense.”); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), discussed in (1), above.

Supreme Court: Kendrick v. Ed’s Beach Serv., Inc., 577 So.2d 936, 937-38 (Fla. 1991); Blackburn v. Dorta, 348 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1977).

First District: Davison v. Berg, 243 So.3d 489, 491-92 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

Second District: UATP Mgmt., LLC v. Barnes, 320 So.3d 851, 857-58 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).

Third District: Fresnedo v. Porky’s Gym III, Inc., 271 So.3d 1185, 1186-87 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

Fourth District: McNichol v. South Florida Trotting Center, Inc. 44 So.3d 253 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2010).

Fifth District: MacGregor v. Daytona Int’l Speedway, LLC, 263 So.3d 151, 153 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

(6) Banking Statute of Frauds: Under Florida Statutes Section 687.0304(2), “[a] debtor may not maintain an action on a credit agreement unless the agreement is in writing, expresses consideration, sets forth the relevant terms and conditions, and is signed by the creditor and the debtor.” Am. First Fed., Inc. v. Trugon Properties, Inc., No. 4D2024-1194, 2025 WL 1819020, at *2 (Fla. 4th DCA July 2, 2025).

3^rd DCA:  Vargas v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 104 So. 3d 1156, 1168 n.8 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

4^th DCA: Am. First Fed., Inc. v. Trugon Properties, Inc., No. 4D2024-1194, 2025 WL 1819020, at *2 (Fla. 4th DCA July 2, 2025);  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Richards,  226 So. 3d 920, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

5^th DCA: Cape, LLC v. Och-Ziff Real Estate Acquisitions LP, 370 So. 3d 1010, 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).

(7) Cardiac Arrest Survival Act; Immunity from Civil Liability: Provides immunity from civil liability to any person who uses or attempts to use an automated external defibrillator device on a victim of a perceived medical emergency, for any harm resulting from the use or attempted use of such device. However, a person is not immune in certain circumstances: (a) when the harm involved was caused by that person’s willful or criminal misconduct, or gross negligence, or reckless disregard to the rights or safety of the victim who was harmed; (b) when the person is a licensed or certified health professional, or a hospital, or a clinic, whose primary purpose is providing health care directly to patients. Section 768.1325, Fla. Stat.; ; L.A. Fitness Int’l, LLC v. Mayer, 980 So.2d 550, 561-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that health clubs and other business establishments have no common law duty to have an AED on the premises).

Supreme Court: Limones v. Sch. Dist. of Lee Cty., 161 So.3d 384, 393 (Fla. 2015) (immunity under the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act does not apply where one fails to use a AED).

Fourth District: L.A. Fitness Int’l, LLC v. Mayer, 980 So.2d 550, 561-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that health clubs and other business establishments have no common law duty to have an AED on the premises).

(8) Collateral Estoppel precludes re-litigation of issues when the identical issue has been litigated between the same parties. See Ervin v. Smith, 312 So. 3d 995, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021); Kaplan v. Nautilus Ins. Co., No. 19-14820, 2021 WL 2644463, at *2 (11th Cir. June 28, 2021); Florida Bar v. Clement,662 So. 2d 690, 697 (Fla. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1210 (1996). Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), discussed in (1), above. “Generally, matters dismissed on the basis of a settlement agreement do not support collateral estoppel because the purpose of settlement is to avoid the actual litigation of an issue.” State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. & State Farm Fire & Casualty Corp. v. B&A Diagnostic, Inc., 145 F.Supp.3d 1154, 1168 (S.D. Fla. 2015).

Supreme Court: Marquardt v. State, 156 So.3d 464, 481 (Fla. 2015).

Second District: Evans v. Gulf Landings Ass'n, Inc., 396 So. 3d 819, 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024); Kovar Law Grp., PLLC v. Benchmark Consulting, Inc., 332 So.3d 47, 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).

Third District: Fernandez v. Cruz, 2022 WL 1760593, *2 (Fla. 3d DCA June 1, 2022).

Fourth District: CSAB Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-1, U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Clarke, 397 So. 3d 99, 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024); Daniel v. State, 336 So.3d 322, 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Fifth District: Government Emps. Ins. Co. v. Kisha, 163 So.3d 1266, 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Sixth District: Shim v. Buechel-Pappas Tr., 402 So. 3d 386, 390-91 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024); Judd v. Haegele, 406 So. 3d 394, 398 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)

(9) Comparative Negligence: For negligence claims that accrue on or after March 24, 2023, Florida will apply a comparative negligence standard, which bars a plaintiff from recovery if the plaintiff is more than fifty (50) percent at fault. §768.81(6), Fla. Stat. (2023). For claims that accrue prior to such date, “tort liability in Florida is premised on pure comparative negligence, which means that a jury should apportion fault between the plaintiff, defendant, and any third parties alleged to have been at fault, and render an award based on a defendant's percentage of fault in causing an injury.” Williams v. Davis, 974 So. 2d 1052, 1061 n.1 (Fla. 2007); Fla. Stat. § 768.81(2).

Third District: Coral Gables Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. City of Opa-Locka, 516 So. 2d 989, 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Fourth District: Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Vosburgh, 480 So. 2d 140, 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

Fifth District: Bongiorno v. Americorp, Inc., 159 So. 3d 1027, 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

(10) Contributory Negligence: Florida has abolished contributory negligence as a complete bar to recovery in favor of comparative negligence. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. 1973); Section 768.81(1)-(5), Fla. Stat.; For negligence claims that accrue on or after March 24, 2023, Florida will apply a comparative negligence standard, which bars a plaintiff from recovery if the plaintiff is more than fifty (50) percent at fault. §768.81(6), Fla. Stat. (2023); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), discussed in (1), above.

Supreme Court: Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. 1973)

First District: Vitro Am., Inc. v. Ngo, 304 So.3d 379, 385-86 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).

Second District: Diecidue v. Lewis, 223 So.3d 1015, 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).

Third District: Grimes v. Family Dollar Stores of Fl, Inc., 194 So.3d 424, 428-29 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

Fourth District: Beltran Cano ex rel. Beltran v. Conway, 889 So.2d 162, 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Fifth District: Petruzzella v. Church on the Rock of Palm Coast, Inc., 219 So.3d 239, 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

 

(11) Corporate Veil: Plaintiffs cannot pierce the corporate veil to hold a corporation’s shareholders individually liable for the corporation’s debts absent a showing “that the corporation was organized or employed to mislead creditors or to work a fraud upon them”. Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 450 So. 2d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 1984); Tuckman v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 20-11242, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 22876 (11th Cir. Aug. 3, 2021); Parisi v. Kingston, 314 So. 3d 656, 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); see also Phelan v. Lawhon, 229 So.3d 853, 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (discussing an exception to the corporate shield doctrine).

Supreme Court: Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 450 So. 2d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 1984).

First District: U-Can-II, Inc. v. Setzer, 870 So.2d 99, 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Second District: Abdo v. Abdo, 320 So.3d 791, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).

Third District: Segal v. Forastero, Inc., 322 So.3d 159, 162-63 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Fourth District: Wurtzebach v. Flooring Depot FTL, Inc., 384 So. 3d 251, 255 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024); Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Rintoul, 2022 WL 1482413, *4 (Fla. 4th DCA May 11, 2022); Flooring Depot FTL, Inc., v. Wurtzebach, 330 So. 3d 47, 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Seminole Boatyard, Inc. v. Christoph, 715 So. 2d 987, 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

Fifth District: Sanchez v. Renda Broad. Corp., 127 So.3d 627, 628-29 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

(12) Discharge in Bankruptcy: 28 U.S.C. §§ 727 (Chapter 7 Debtor), 1141(d) (Chapter 11 Debtor), 1228 (Chapter 12 Debtor), 1328 (Chapter 13 Debtor); Kalmanson v. Adams, 988 So. 2d 1121, 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (explaining that “discharge in bankruptcy is an affirmative defense.”); In re Bentley, 599 B.R. 369 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2019); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), discussed in (1), above.

Supreme Court: The Fla. Bar v. Poe, 662 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1995).

First District: Terra Mar Prop. Mgmt., LLC, v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y, 334 So.3d 363, 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022).

Second District: BMG Realty Grp., LLC v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 291 So.3d 165, 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).

Third District: Salcedo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 223 So.3d 1099, 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Fourth District: Barrett v. Barrett, 973 So.2d 632, 633-34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

 

(13) Duress is severe pressure or other influence that destroys the defendant’s free will and forces the defendant to do an act or enter into a contract. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship v. Clark, 137 S.Ct. 1421, 1428 (2017) (holding “the doctrine of duress involves unfair dealing at the contract formation stage”); Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Mueller, No. 8:19-CV-3170-TPB-JSS, 2021 WL 1720284, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2021); Ziegler v. Natera, 279 So. 3d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), discussed in (1), above.

Supreme Court: Matter of Adoption of Doe, 543 So.2d 741, 744 (Fla. 1989).

First District: State, Agency for Health Care Admin. v. MIED, Inc., 869 So.2d 13, 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Second District: Drapp v. McDaniel, 306 So.3d 1280, 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).

Fourth District: Hallandale Plaza, LLC v. New Tropical Car Wash, LLC, 335 So.3d 712, 718-19 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Fifth District: Oral v. Oral, 325 So.3d 259, 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021).

(14) Ecclesiastical abstention doctrine: The First Amendment of the United States Constitution precludes courts from adjudicating issues of religious doctrine, such as those of “discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law,” but does not preclude courts from addressing purely secular disputes where one party is a religiously affiliated organization. Eglise Baptiste Bethanie De Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 824 F. App’x 680, 682-83 (11th Cir. 2020).

First District: Springhill Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. v. Mobley, 251 So.3d 281, 283 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Flynn v. Estevez, 221 So.3d 1241, 1245-46 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

Second District: Nussbaumer v. State, 882 So.2d 1067, 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Third District: St. Brendan High School, Inc. v. Neff, 283 So.3d 399, 402 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2019); Archdiocese of Miami, Inc. v. Minagorri, 954 So.2d 640, 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Fourth District: Auguste v. Hyacinthe, 346 So. 3d 67, 70-71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022); Eglise Baptiste Bethanie De Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 321 So.3d 245, 246-47 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Fifth District: Napolitano v. St Joseph Catholic Church, 308 So.3d 274, 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020).

(15) The economic loss doctrine is limited to products liability cases and bars causes of action in tort unless the defective product injures a person or damages property other than the defective product itself. Tiara Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., 110 So.3d 399, 401-03 (Fla. 2013); Inspirations Nevada LLC v. Med Pro Billing, Inc., No. 20-CV-60268, 2021 WL 2156677, at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 26, 2021); Cordero v. Transamerica Annuity Serv. Corp., NO. 18-cv-21665-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES, 2020 WL 1672501, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2020).

Supreme Court: Tiara Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., 110 So.3d 399, 401-03 (Fla. 2013).

First District: Kone, Inc. Robinson, 937 So.2d 238, 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Second District: Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC v. Curd, 259 So.3d 239, 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).

Third District: 2711 Hollywood Beach Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. TRG Holiday, Ltd., 307 So.3d 869, 870 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2020).

Fourth District: Bornstein v. Marcus, 169 So.3d 1239, 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Fifth District: Gencor Indus., Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 988 So.2d 1206, 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

 

(16) Equitable Estoppel “is the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is absolutely precluded, both at law and in equity, from asserting rights which perhaps have otherwise existed, either of property or of contract, or of remedy, as against another person, who has in good faith relied upon such conduct and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse, and who on his part acquires some corresponding right, either of property, or of contract or of remedy.” See United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Chiropractic Clinics of S. Fla., No. 3D21-111, 2021 WL 2447804, at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA June 16, 2021).

Supreme Court: State v. Harris, 881 So.2d 1079, 1084 (Fla. 2004).

First District: McNair v. Dorsey, 291 So. 3d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020); Campbell v. Department of Transp., 267 So.3d 541, 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

Second District: Beezley v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2022 WL 943973, *2 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 30, 2022).

Third District: Quintana v. Rodriguez Family Inv. P'ship, LLLP, 402 So. 3d 398, 402 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Chiropractic Clinics of S. Fla., 322 So.3d 740, 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Fourth District: Bergeron Envtl. & Recycling, LLC v. LGL Recycling, LLC, 398 So. 3d 988, 993-94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024); Tome v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 125 So.3d 864, 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

Fifth District: Goodwin v. Blu Murray Ins. Agency, Inc., 939 So. 2d 1098, 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

(17) Equitable Tolling may delay the running of the statute of limitations “based on the plaintiff’s blameless ignorance and lack of prejudice to the defendant. Thomas v. Att’y Gen., 992 F.3d 1162, 1179 (11th Cir. 2021); Custodio v. Secretary, Dep’t of Corr., No. 8:17-cv-1963-T-02SPF, 2020 WL 1332029, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2020); Washington v. Secretary, Dep’t of Corr., No. 8:16-cv-595-T-23AAS, 2019 WL 1402198, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2019).

Supreme Court: Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So.3d 1219, 1229-30 (Fla. 2016).

First District: Washington Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Davis, 401 So. 3d 618, 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025); D’Amico v. Clemmons, 298 So.3d 114, 115-16 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).

Second District: Olean Med. Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Azima, 144 So.3d 561, 564-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Third District: O.M. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 404 So. 3d 547, 550-51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025); Federal Deposit Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Equities Co., 304 So.3d 1240, 1243-44 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).

Fourth District: Blaisdell v. State, Unemployment Appeals Com’n, 15 So.3d 806, 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Fifth District: Madison Highlands, LLC v. Fla. Hous. Fin. Corp., 220 So.3d 467, 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

 

(18) Exculpatory Clauses shift the risk of injury and deprive one of the contracting parties of his or her right to recover damages suffered due to the negligent act of the other contracting party. Exculpatory clauses are disfavored in Florida as a matter of public policy. For an exculpatory clause to legally bar a plaintiff’s claim, the clause must be unambiguous and clearly demonstrate a clear and understandable intention of the defendant to be relieved of liability for its negligence so that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what they are contracting away. Pier 1 Cruise Experts v. Revelex Corp., 929 F.3d 1334, 1344 (11th Cir. 2019).

Supreme Court: Sanislo v. Give Kids the World, Inc., 157 So.3d 256, 260-61 (Fla. 2015);

First District: Casasanta v. Sailshare 296 LLC, 274 So.3d 418, 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019);

Second District: Marjone v. Lane, 995 So.2d 1086, 1087-88 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008);

Third District: Fresnedo v. Porky’s Gym III, Inc., 271 So.3d 1185, 1186-87 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019);

Fourth District: Elalouf v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cty., 311 So. 3d 863, 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Merlien v. JM Fam. Enterprises, Inc., 301 So. 3d 1, 3-4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

Fifth District: Peterson v. Flare Fittings, Inc., 177 So.3d 651, 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015);

 

(19) A Fabre defense is necessary so that the court  may determine a party’s percentage of fault based on “all … entities who contributed to the accident, regardless of whether they have been or could have been joined as defendants.” Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1181, 1185 (Fla. 1993). “In order to include a nonparty on the verdict form pursuant to Fabre, the defendant must plead as an affirmative defense the negligence of the nonparty and specifically identify the nonparty.” Bogosian v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 817 So. 2d 968, 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (quoting Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Servs., Inc., 678 So. 2d 1262, 1264 (Fla. 1996)).

Supreme Court: Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1181, 1185 (Fla. 1993).

First District: Jackson Cnty. Hosp. Corp. v. Aldrich, 835 So.2d 318, 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

Second District: Parsons v. Culp, 328 So.3d 341, 343 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).

Third District: Union Carbide Corp. v. Font, 299 So.3d 491, 495-96 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).

Fourth District: J.L. Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Schurr, 336 So.3d 291, 296-97 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Fifth District: City of Orlando v. Pineiro, 66 So.3d 1064, 1074n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

(20) Failure of Consideration is a defense to the contract because it is a fundamental principle of contract law that a promise must be supported by consideration to be enforceable. Incarcerated Entm’t, LLC v. Cox, No. 18-21991-Civ-Scola, 2019 WL 4738144, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2019); BRE Mariner Marco Town Center, LLC v. Zoom Tan, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-284-FtM-29CM, 2019 WL 1704197, at *6 (M.D. Fla. April 28, 2016).:

Supreme Court: Lugassy v. Indep. Fire Ins. Co., 636 So.2d 1332, 1335 (Fla. 1994).

First District: U.S. v. Morrison, 28 So.3d 94, 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

Second District: OTI Fiber, LLC v. CenterState Bank, N.A., 326 So.3d 743, 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).

Third District: Flagship Resort Dev. Corp. v. Interval Intern., Inc., 28 So.3d 915, 921 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2010).

Fourth District: World-Class Talent Experience, Inc. v. Giordano, 293 So.3d 547, 548-49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

Fifth District: 1700 Rinehart, LLC v. Advance Am., 51 So.3d 535, 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

(21) Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies: A plaintiff cannot seek judicial relief when a statute or employment contract requires the plaintiff to first seek relief through an administrative process or forum.  Abram v. Leu, 848 F. App’x 868, 869 (11th Cir. 2021); Stephens v. Corizon, LLC, No. 3:20-CV-70-BJD-PDB, 2021 WL 2981317, at *5 (M.D. Fla. July 14, 2021); United States v. Barbieri, No. 18-20060-CR, 2021 WL 2646604, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2021)(recognizing that exhaustion “may be unnecessary where the administrative process would be incapable of granting adequate relief,” e.g. in cases of unreasonable delay or futility); Rousseau v. Miami-Dade Cty., No. 3D21-0057, 2021 WL 2447819, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA June 16, 2021).

Supreme Court: Green v. Cottrell, 204 So.3d 22, 30 (Fla. 2016).

First District: Pretzer v. Swearingen, 394 So. 3d 175, 186-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024); Florida Dept. of Health v. TropiFlora, LLC, 265 So.3d 673, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

Second District: Ramos v. Steak N Shake, Inc., 376 So. 3d 100, 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023); Braden Wood Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Mavard Trading, Ltd., 277 So.3d 664, 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

Third District: Rousseau v. Miami-Dade Cty., 321 So.3d 374 (Mem), 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Fourth District: S. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Stratos, 384 So. 3d 781, 782-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023); People’s Trust MGA, LLC v. Pesta, 279 So.3d 821, 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

Fifth District: Cornerstone 417, LLC v. Cornerstone Cono. Ass’n, Inc., 300 So.3d 1262, 1265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020).

(22) Failure to Satisfy Prima Facie Elements: The plaintiff’s inability to satisfy one or more of the prima facie elements of a claim is an absolute bar to that claim. See Borenstein v. Williams Island Prop. Owners Assoc., Inc., No. 16-25182-CIV-WILLIAMS, 2019 WL 1406466 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2019); Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, 676 So. 2d 41, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Mesa v. Law Enforcement Sys., LLC, No. 15-21089-CIV, 2015 WL 12804525, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2015) (holding “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”).

Supreme Court: Koren v. School Bd. Of Miami-Dade Cnty., 97 So.3d 215, 217 (Fla. 2012).

First District: Payne v. AllStaff Inc/Summit, 303 So.3d 976, 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

Second District: Dolphin Aviation, Inc. v. Heli Aviation Fla., LLC, 308 So.3d 237, 240-41 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).

Third District: Jackson v. Kleen 1, LLC, 238 So.3d 378, 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Fourth District: PennyMac Loan Servs. LLC v. Ustarez, 303 So.3d 578, 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

Fifth District: Luciani v. Nealon, 181 So.3d 1200, 1202-03 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

(23) Fraud: See § 26, discussing the elements of fraud; see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), discussed in (1), above. Further, Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.120(b) mandates that “[i]n all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting the fraud or mistake shall be stated with such particularity as the circumstances may permit.’” Failure to allege a specific element of fraud in a complaint is fatal when challenged by a motion to dismiss. See JAK Cap., LLC v. Adams, 306 So. 3d 1285, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020); Parra de Rey v. Rey, 114 So. 3d 371, 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Wireman v. Park Nat’l Corp., No. 20-14096, 2021 WL 3045347, at *4 (11th Cir. July 20, 2021)(holding that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), “a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.”).

Supreme Court: Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 So.2d 740, 743 (Fla. 2002).

First District: LSG Sky Chefs, Inc./Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Santaella, 299 So.3d 1180, 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).

Second District: JAK Capital, LLC v. Adams, 306 So.3d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020); George Hunt, Inc. v. Wash-Bowl, Inc., 348 So.2d 910 (Fla. 2^nd DCA 1977).

Third District: Parra de Rey v. Rey, 114 So. 3d 371, 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Fourth District: Anchor Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Trif, 322 So.3d 663, 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Fifth District: Najera v. NationsBank Trust Co., N.A., 707 So.2d 1153, 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

(24) Good Samaritan Act; Immunity from Civil Liability: Provides immunity from civil suit to any person who provides emergency care in response to an emergency situation, without objection of the injured victim as long as the provided care was rendered in good faith. A person will receive this immunity as long they act as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances. Section 768.13, Fla. Stat.

Supreme Court: Cantore v. West Boca Med. Ctr., 254 So.3d 256, 260 n. 2 (Fla. 2018) (Discussing immunity from civil damages to any healthcare provider that provides emergency services unless damages are the result of “reckless disregard.”).

First District: Pope v. State, 246 So.3d 1282, 1282, 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

Second District: University of Florida Bd. of Tr. v. Stone ex rel. Stone, 92 So.3d 264, 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Third District: Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade Cnty. V. Rolle, 88 So.3d 191, 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Fourth District: Frawley v. City of Lake Worth, 603 So.2d 1327, 1328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)

Fifth District: Christensen v. Cooper, 972 So.2d 207, 209-10 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

(25) Illegality: Courts will refuse to enforce, as a matter of public policy, illegal contracts. Al-Hakim v. Great W. Cas., Inc., No. 8:19-cv-1444-T-36SPF, 2019 WL 7484079, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2019); Collectarius Fin., LLC v. Statebridge Co., LLC, No. 8:18–cv–137–T–24 AEP, 2018 WL 807041, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2018) (holding “the rationale of the rule is that the judiciary as an institution will not provide aid to enforce an obligation that arises from an illegal contract.”); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), discussed in (1), above.

Supreme Court: Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So.3d 456, 475 (Fla. 2011).

First District: Chen v. Whitney Nat. Bank, 65 So.3d 1170, 1173-74 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Second District: Addit, LLC v. Hengesbach, 2022 WL 1230201, *2 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 27, 2022). Armco Drainage and Metal Products, Inc. v. County of Pinellas, 137 So. 2d 234, 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) (describing in detail rationale of illegality defense).

Third District: Taboada v. Duarte, 393 So. 3d 775, 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024); Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Co., 261 So.3d 613, 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

Fourth District: Premier Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. v. Larson, 250 So.3d 94, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Fifth District: Vanacore Constr., Inc. v. Osborn, 260 So.3d 527, 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

(26) The impact rule requires that “before a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligence of another, the emotional distress suffered must flow from physical injuries the plaintiff sustained in an impact.”  E.g., R.J. v. Humana of Fla, Inc., 625 So.2d 360, 362 (Fla. 1995)(citation omitted). Exceptions to the impact rule include “a certain very narrow class of cases in which the foreseeability and gravity of the emotional injury involved, and lack of countervailing policy concerns, have surmounted the policy rationale undergirding the application of the impact rule” (Rowell v. Holt, 850 So.2d 474, 478 (Fla. 2003)) including “intentional torts, such as defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress” (Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Abril, 969 So.2d 201, 207 (Fla. 2007)) and freestanding torts such as wrongful birth (id.),  where “a psychotherapist has created a fiduciary relationship and has breached a statutory duty of confidentiality to his or her patient” (Gracey v. Eaker, 837 So.2d 348, 357 (Fla. 2002)), and claims “for a breach of confidentiality in negligently disclosing the results of HIV testing.” Abril, 969 So.2d at 208).

Supreme Court: Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Abril, 969 So.2d 201, 207 (Fla. 2007).

First District: Reid v. Daley, 276 So. 3d 878, 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

Second District: Thomas v. Hosp. Bd. of Directors of Lee Cnty., 41 So. 3d 246, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Third District: G4S Secure Solutions USA, Inc. v. Golzar, 208 So.3d 204, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

Fourth District: Lotierzo v. Barbarito, 356 So. 3d 846, 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023); Williams v. Boyd-Panciera Family Funeral Care, Inc., 293 So. 3d 499, 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

Fifth District: Murphy v. Heritage II Holdings, LLC, 2025 WL 1667775, (Fla. 5^th DCA 2025); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Hagan, 750 So. 2d 83, 86 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

Sixth District: Florida BC Holdings, LLC v. Reese, 376 So. 3d 109, 115-17 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023).

(27) The “injury by fellow servant” defense precludes an employee’s recovery for damages where an injury is (a) caused by the negligence of the employee and in part through the negligence of a fellow employee, (b) both employees are jointly performing the act causing the injury and (c) the employer is not contributorily negligent. Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Ry. Co. v. Pittman, 130 Fla. 624, 178 So. 297, 298 (1938); Smith v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., 182 So. 2d 422, 424 (Fla. 1966);see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), discussed in (1), above

Supreme Court: Ry. Exp. Agency, Inc. v. Fulmer, 227 So. 2d 870, 871 (Fla. 1969); Crenshaw Bros. Produce Co. v. Harper, 194 So. 353, 355-66 (Fla. 1940).

First District: Columbia Cnty. v. Holt, 890 So. 2d 318, 319-21 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Second District: Womble v. Raber, 334 So. 2d 827, 827-28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

Third District: Fla. Dept. of Transp. v. Juliano, 864 So. 2d 11, 14-15 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

Fourth District: Fitzgerald v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., 840 So. 2d 460, 461-64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Fifth District: Ga. S. & F. Ry. Co. v. Shiver, 172 So. 2d 639, 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965).

(28) In Pari Delicto Doctrine: Precludes a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing from recovering damages resulting from the wrongdoing where (a) the parties have participated in the same wrongdoing and (b) the parties are equally at fault.

Supreme Court: Earth Trades Inc. v. T & G Corp., 108 So. 3d 580, 583- 87 (Fla. 2013).

First District: Yost v. Rieve Enters., Inc., 461 So. 2d 178, 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

Second District: O’ Halloran v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 969 So. 2d 1039, 1043-47 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Third District: MGM Cons. Servs. Corp v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of America, 57 So. 3d 884, 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Fourth District: Dorestin v. Hollywood Imps., Inc., 45 So. 3d 819, 821-24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Fifth District: PNC Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, etc v. Smith, 225 So. 3d 294, 295-96 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); PNC Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, etc v. Smith, 225 So. 3d 294, 295-96 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

(29) Judicial Estoppel precludes a party from asserting a proposition that is inconsistent with that alleged or admitted under oath in prior proceeding.

Supreme Court: Page v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas, 308 So. 3d 953, 960 (Fla. 2020).

First District: Olmstead v. Emmanuel, 783 So. 2d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Second District: Centrella v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 336 So. 3d 1248, 1252-1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).

Third District: Alvarez v. Jimenez, 337 So. 3d 117, 119-120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Fourth District: Ripple v. CBS Corp., 337 So. 3d 45, 58-59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Fifth District: Dora v. Morrison as Co-Tr. of Mary Rose & Douglas Morrison Family Tr., u/a/d 10/05/2007, 384 So. 3d 290, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024); Marreo v. Rea, 312 So. 3d 1041, 1049-50 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021).

(30) Laches  is established when (a) conduct on the part of the defendant gives rise to the subject matter of the complaint; (b) the plaintiff has knowledge or notice of the conduct, but delays in bringing the complaint; (c) the defendant lacks knowledge or notice that plaintiff would assert the right on which he or she bases the complaint; and (d) the defendant will suffer injury or prejudice if relief is awarded to the plaintiff. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), discussed in (1), above.

Supreme Court: Fla. Bar v. Lipman, 497 So. 2d 1165, 1167 (Fla. 1986).

First District: Dep’t. of Revenue v. Holley, 86 So. 3d 1199, 1203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Second District: U.S. Bank Home Mortgage v. Boivin, 403 So. 3d 421, 425-26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2025); Baker v. Baker, 920 So. 2d 689, 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

Third District: Delgado v. Delgado, 320 So. 3d 919, 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Fourth District: Avelo Mortg., LLC v. Vero Ventures, LLC, 254 So. 3d 439, 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Fifth District: Goodwin v. Blu Murray Ins. Agency, Inc., 939 So. 2d 1098, 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

(31) License is the right to take action that would otherwise be illegal. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), discussed in (1), above.

Supreme Court: Fla. Pub. Co. v. Fletcher, 340 So. 2d 914, 916-19 (Fla. 1976).

First District: Wyman v. Robbins, 513 So. 2d 230, 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

Second District: Hattaway v. Fla. Power and Light Co., 133 S. 2d 101 (Fla 2d DCA 1961).

Third District: Brennan v. State, 651 So. 2d 244, 245-46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

Fourth District: Bos. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fornalski, 234 So. 2d 386, 386-87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).

Fifth District: Pilafjian v. State, 210 So.3d 738, 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

(32) Litigation privilege is an absolute immunity that covers both defamatory statements and other tortious behavior during a judicial proceeding.

Fla Sup Ct: Debrincat v. Fischer, 217 So. 3d 68, 69-71 (Fla. 2017).

First District: Inlet Beach Cap. Invs., LLC v. Enclave at Inlet Beach Owners Ass’n, Inc., 236 So. 3d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

Second District: KAC 2021-1, LLC v. Am. Homes 4 Rent Properties One, LLC, 398 So. 3d 1033, 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024); Driscoll v. Knellinger, 380 So. 3d 1237, 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024); AGM Invs., LLC v. Bus. Law Grp. P.A., 219 So. 3d 920, 923-28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).

Third District: Gursky Ragan, P.A. v. Ass’n of Poinciana Vills., Inc., 314 So. 3d 594, 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).

Fourth District: Young v. Kopchak, 368 So. 3d 1001, 1004-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023); Nunes v. Herschman, 310 So. 3d 79, 81-85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Fifth District: Spagnuolo v. Ins. Office of Am., Inc., 356 So. 3d 908, 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023); Pace v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co. Nat’l Ass’n, 224 So. 3d 342, 343-45 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

(33) Mass Shootings and similar criminal acts with multiple victims are single “incidents or occurrences” for purposes of the State of Florida’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions, pursuant to § 768.28(5), Florida Statutes; thus, total recovery in tort against the State of Florida based on such events is limited to an individual cap of $200,000 and an aggregate cap of $300,000, no matter how many tort claimants there are.

Supreme Court: Guttenberg v. School Board of Broward County, 303 So.3d 518 (Fla. 2020); Barnett v. Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 303 So. 3d 508, 517 (Fla. 2020).

Third District: City of Mia. v. Valdez, 847 So. 2d 1005, 1006-009 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

(34) Mootness requires that issues before the court remain “live,” and that parties maintain a legally cognizable interest in the outcome throughout the litigation.

Fla. Sup. Ct.: Casiano v. State, 310 So. 3d 910, 913-16 (Fla. 2021).

First District: Grand Am. Enterprises Inc. v. City of Valparaiso, 393 So. 3d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024); Waters v. Dep’t of Corr., 306 So. 3d 1264, 1266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).

Second District: Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Hilchey, 396 So. 3d 775, 778-79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024); Bell v. Battaglia, 332 So. 3d 1094, 1098-1103 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).

Third District: Meruelo v. Meruelo, 404 So. 3d 531, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024); V.L.H. v. State, 317 So. 3d 181, 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Fourth District: Nicholas v. Nicholas, 405 So. 3d 363, 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025); Jeda v. Gerasci, 330 So. 3d 549, 551-52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Fifth District: Calvert v. Aleckson, 396 So. 3d 49, 49-50 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024); Schweickert v. Citrus Cnty. Fla. Bd., 193 So. 3d 1075, 1077-79 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

(35) Parental Immunity shields parents from liability for the torts of their minor children except: “(1) where the parent entrusts the child with an instrumentality which, because of the child’s lack of age, judgment, or experience, may become a source of danger to others; (2) where the child committing the tort is acting as the servant or agent of its parents; (3) where the parent consents, directs, or sanctions the wrongdoing; and (4) where the parent fails to exercise control over the minor child although the parent knows or with due care should know that injury to another is possible.” Snow v. Nelson, 475 So.2d 225, 226 (Fla. 1985); but see Ard v. Ard, 414 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 1982)(holding that “in a tort action for negligence arising from an accident and brought by an unemancipated minor child against a parent, the doctrine of parental immunity is waived to the extent of the parent's available liability insurance coverage. If the parent is without liability insurance, or if the policy contains an exclusion clause for household or family members, then parental immunity is not waived and the child cannot sue the parent.”).

Supreme Court: Snow v. Nelson, 475 So.2d 225, 226 (Fla. 1985).

First District: Thompson v. Baniqued, 741 So. 2d 629, 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Second District: Bullock v. Armstrong, 180 So. 2d 479, 480-81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).

Third District: K.C. v. A.P., 577 So. 2d 669, 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Fourth District: Perez v. Rodriguez, 204 So.3d 92, 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Fifth District: Tubbs v. Dressler, 419 So.1151 (Fla. 5^th DCA 1982).

(36) Payment: When the defendant has already satisfied the plaintiff’s claim through payment of money or discharge of obligation. See generally Blacks Law Dictionary, p. 1129 (6th Ed. 1990); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), discussed in (1), above.

Fla. Supreme Court: Riedel v. J.R. Watts & Sons, 158 So. 890, 890 (Fla. 1935).

First District: Bergstein v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd., 97 So.3d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Second District: Foster v. Smith, 595 So. 2d 248, 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

Third District: Dirico v. Redland Estates, Inc., 154 So.3d 355, 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Insurance Co. of the South. v. Kennedy & Ely Ins., Inc., 143 So. 2d 199, 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).

Fourth District: Expert Inspections, LLC. v. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 333 So. 3d 200, 201-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Fifth District: Keanie v. Goldy, 698 So.2d 1264, 1268 (Fla. 5^th DCA 1997).

(37) Preservation of Evidence:  A “reasonable anticipation of litigation” triggers the duty to preserve evidence. League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 172 So. 3d 363, 391 (Fla. 2015)(citing Am. Hospitality Mgmt. Co. of Minn. v. Hettiger, 904 So.2d 547, 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (noting that “a defendant could be charged with a duty to preserve evidence where it could reasonably have foreseen the claim”)).

Supreme Court: League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner, 172 So. 3d 363, 391 (Fla. 2015).

First District: Swearingen v. Pretzer, 310 So. 3d 1084, 1085-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).

Second District: Osmulski v. Oldsmar Fine Wine, Inc., 93 So. 3d 389, 390-95 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Third District: Pena v. Bi-Lo Holdings, LLC, 304 So. 3d 1254, 1256-59 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).

Fourth District: Adamson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 325 So. 3d 887, 895-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Fifth District: Shamrock-Shamrock, Inc. v. Remark, 271 So. 3d 1200, 1203-06 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).

(38) Federal Preemption: The Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2) provides that state law claims are not available when preempted by federal law.

Supreme Court: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Marotta, 214 So.3d 590, 596 (Fla. 2017).

First District: Tallahassee Mem'l Healthcare, Inc. v. Wiles by & through Wiles, 351 So. 3d 141, 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022); Stevens v. Stevens, 2022 WL 1767260, *1-4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022).

Second District: Joe Nagy Towing, Inc. v. Lawless, 101 So. 3d 868, 873-77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Third District: McBride v. Gemini Air Cargo, Inc., 915 So. 2d 187, 188-89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Fourth District: Point Conversions, LLC v. WPB Hotel Partners, LLC, 324 So. 3d 947, 953-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Fifth District: Marcy v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 921 So. 2d 781, 783-86 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

(39) Ratification occurs when a party with full knowledge of the material facts takes action to adopt an act or contract entered without authority.

Supreme Court:  Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Magaha, 769 So. 2d 1012, 1020-23 (Fla. 2000).

First District: Kearney v. Kearney, 129 So. 3d 381, 387-88 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Second District: Stalley v. Transitional Hosps. Corp. of Tampa, Inc., 44 So. 3d 627, 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Third District: Kocik v. Fernandez, 354 So. 3d 1134, 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); ABC Salvage, Inc. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 305 So.3d 725, 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)

Fourth District: Est. of Pounds v. Miller & Jacobs, P.A., 336 So. 3d 14, 16-21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022);  Domino v. Nielsen, 322 So.3d 691(Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Fourth District: Est. of Pounds v. Miller & Jacobs, P.A., 336 So. 3d 14, 16-21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Fifth District: Carlucci v. Demings, 31 So. 3d 245, 248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

(40) Release is the waiver or relinquishment of the right to bring a claim against a person or entity. See generally Blacks Law Dictionary, pg. 1289 (6th Ed. 1990); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), discussed in (1), above.

Supreme Court: Sanislo v. Give Kids the World, Inc., 157 So. 3d 256, 258-60 (Fla. 2015).

First District: Casasanta v. Sailshare 296 LLC, 274 So. 3d 418, 419-20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

Second District: Villareal v. Eres, 128 So. 3d 93, 93-101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Third District: Tavarez v. Nu-Way Towing Serv., Inc., 326 So. 3d 133, 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Fourth District: Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Fla v. Branford, 312 So. 3d 91, 95-97 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Fifth District: Tatman v. Space Coast Kennel Club, Inc., 27 So, 3d 108, 109-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Bruce v. Heiman, 392 So.2d 1026, 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

(41) Res Judicata bars a second litigation when the same cause of action has already been litigated between the same parties by rendering the first judgment conclusive as to all matters that were or could have been adjudicated in the first action.

Supreme Court: Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So. 3d 419, 432-33 (Fla. 2013).

First District: Kilyn Const., Inc v. Pierce, 200 So. 3d 259, 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

Second District: Daniels v. ReadyCap Lending, LLC, 381 So. 3d 656, 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024); Crescent Shore Condo. Ass’n., Inc. v. Kai, 330 So. 3d 582, 585-86 (Fla. 2d 2021).

Third District: Nix v. Office of Comm'r of Baseball, No. 3D23-1486, 2025 WL 1173112, at *1-2 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 23, 2025); Fernandez v. Cruz, 2022 WL 1760593 *2-4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).

Fourth District: Darling v. Ill, 375 So. 3d 291, 294-95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023); Klement v. Kofsman o/b/I A.K., 337 So. 3d 27, 30-31 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).

Fifth District: Bauerle v. Bauerle, 371 So. 3d 969, 970-71 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023); Moody-Alchin v. Barton, 2022 WL 1051477, *1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022).

(42) Standing requires that the plaintiff have a sufficient interest at stake in the controversy that will be affected by the litigation’s outcome.

Supreme Court: Cowart v. City of West Palm Beach, 255 So. 2d 673, 674-675 (Fla. 1971);.

First District: Seaside Town Couns., Inc. v. Seaside Cmty. Dev. Corp., 2021 WL 6135078, *3-5 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021); DeSantis v. Fla. Educ. Ass’n, 306 So. 3d 1202, 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).

Second District: U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Mink, 301 So. 3d 386, 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (holding “a plaintiff who is not the original lender may establish standing to foreclose a mortgage loan by submitting a note with a blank or special indorsement, an assignment of the note, or an affidavit otherwise proving the plaintiff’s status as the holder of the note.”).

Third District: Pet Supermarket, Inc. v. Eldridge, 360 So. 3d 1201, 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); Joli v. Hannon, 336 So. 3d 343, 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

Fourth District: Everett Bros. Recycling, Inc. v. Martin Cnty., 401 So. 3d 372, 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025); Broward Cty. v. Fla. Carry, Inc., 313 So. 3d 635, 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Fifth District: Roller v. Collins, 373 So. 3d 35, 40 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023); PMT NPL Fin. 2015-1 v. Centurion Sys., LLC, 257 So. 3d 516, 517-20 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

(43) Statute of Frauds: The Statute of Frauds bars the enforcement of oral contracts that cannot be performed within one year. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), discussed in (1), above.

Supreme Court: Browning v. Poirier, 165 So. 3d 663, 665 (Fla. 2015); DK Arena, Inc. v. EB Acquisitions I, LLC, 112 So.3d 85, 91-3 (Fla. 2013).

First District: Loper v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc., 203 So. 3d 898, 906 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).  

Second District: LynkUS Commc’ns, Inc. v. WebMD Corp, 965 So. 2d 1161, 1164-65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Third District: Segal v. Forastero, Inc., No. 3D21-89, 2021 WL 2212869, at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA June 2, 2021)

Fourth District: Mowder v. Smith, 390 So. 3d 106, 108-09 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024); Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Delvar, 180 So. 3d 1190, 1192-94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Fifth District: Stamer v. Free Fly, Inc., 277 So. 3d 179, 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019); Smith v. Royal Automotive Group, Inc., 675 So. 2d 144, 154-155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

(44) Doctrine of Unclean Hands: Plaintiffs who seek a remedy in equity with “unclean hands,” which does not require the commission of a crime but only acts “condemned by honest and reasonable” persons, will be denied relief. Roberts v. Roberts, 84 So. 2d 717, 720 (Fla. 1956); Echo River Sanctuary, LLC v. 21st Mortg. Corp., 2022 WL 2153565 *1 (Fla. 1st DCA June 15, 2022); Proino Breakfast Club, II, Inc. v. OGI Capital, Inc., 331 So. 3d 846, 847-49 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021); HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n v. Buset, 241 So. 3d 882, 885-92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); McMichael v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trustee Co., 241 So.3d 179, 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Corrigan v. Vargas, 277 So. 3d 642, 645 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).

Supreme Court: Roberts v. Roberts, 84 So. 2d 717, 720 (Fla. 1956).

First District: U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n as Tr. for C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-CB8 v. Qadir, 342 So. 3d 855, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022); Echo River Sanctuary, LLC v. 21st Mortg. Corp., 2022 WL 2153565 *1 (Fla. 1st DCA June 15, 2022); 21^st Mortg. Corp. v. TSE Plantation, LLC, 301 So. 3d 1120, 1122 (Fla. 1^st DCA 2020).

Second District: Perry v. Turner, 365 So. 3d 1222, 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023); Proino Breakfast Club, II, Inc. v. OGI Capital, Inc., 331 So. 3d 846, 847-49 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).

Third District: HSBC Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n v. Buset, 241 So. 3d 882, 885-92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

Fourth District: McMichael v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 241 So.3d 179, 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Fifth District: Corrigan v. Vargas, 277 So. 3d 642, 645 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).

(45) Voluntary Payment Doctrine: If a payment is made of any sum under a claim of right with knowledge of the facts, the payment is voluntary and cannot be recovered.

Supreme Court: North  Mia. v. Seaway Corp., 9 So. 2d 705, 707 (Fla. 1942).

First District: Hassen v. Mediaone of Greater Fla., Inc., 751 So. 2d 1289, 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Second District: Ruiz v. Brink’s Home Sec., Inc., 777 So. 2d 1062, 1063-64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Third District: Sheckler v. Monroe Cnty., 335 So. 3d 1265, 1266-67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).

Fourth District: Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., Inc., v. First Indem. Ins. Servs., Inc., 31 So. 3d 852, 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Fifth District: Disc. Sleep of Ocala, LLC v. City of Ocala, 300 So. 3d 316, 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (noting that “the voluntary payment defense does not apply when the payment has been made under compulsion or coercion); but see Section 725.04, Fla. Stat. (“When a suit is instituted by a party to a contract to recover a payment made pursuant to the contract and by the terms of the contract there was no enforceable obligation to make the payment or the making of the payment was excused, the defense of voluntary payment may not be interposed by the person receiving payment to defeat recovery of the payment.”); Easter v. City of Orlando, 249 So. 3d 723, 727-29 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

Sixth District: Avatar Properties, Inc. v. Gundel, 372 So. 3d 715, 724 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023).

(46) Waiver requires that the plaintiff (a) possesses, at the time of the waiver, a right, privilege, advantage, or benefit (the “right”), which may be waived; (b) has actual or constructive knowledge of the right; and (c) has the intention to relinquish the right.

Supreme Court: Raymond James Fin. Servs. Inc v. Saldukas, 896 So. 2d 707, 711 (Fla. 2005).

First District: Running Cars, LLC v. Miller, 333 So. 3d 1177, 1179-1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022); State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Nordin, 312 So. 3d 200, 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021).

Second District: Gratkowski v. ASI Preferred Ins. Corp., 351 So. 3d 1216, 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022); Naples Ests. Ltd. P’ship v. Muston, 327 So. 3d 419, 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).

Third District: Arguelles v. Citizens  Prop. Ins. Corp., 278 So. 3d 108, 112 (Fla. 3d 2019).

Fourth District: CSC Serv. Works, Inc. v. Boca Bayou Condo. Ass’n., Inc., 308 So. 3d 1021, 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

Fifth District: Smith v. Carlton, 348 So. 3d 52, 56-57 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022); Gov’t  Emps. Ins. Co. v. Kisha, 160 So. 3d 549, 551 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

(47) Worker’s Compensation is an employee’s sole remedy for claims of injury or death absent intentional conduct by employer that is substantially certain to result in injury or death.

Supreme Court: Halifax Paving Inc. v. Scott & Jobalia Const. Co., Inc., 565 So. 2d 1346, 1347-48 (Fla. 1990); Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Smith, 359 So.2d 427, 428 (Fla. 1978).

First District: McNair v. Dorsey, 291 So.3d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020), reh’g denied (Mar. 13, 2020).

Second District: Heredia v. John Beach & Assoc., Inc., 278 So. 3d 194, 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

Third District: Coastal Masonry, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 30 So. 3d 545, 547 (Fla. 3d 2010).

Fourth District:  Merlien v. JM Fam. Enterprises, Inc., 301 So. 3d 1, 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

Fifth District: Byerly v. Citrus Pub., Inc., 725 So. 2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

(48) Wrongful Conduct Rule: A plaintiff cannot assert a claim based on his own illegal conduct.

Supreme Court: Carter v. Carter, 88 So. 2d 153, 157 (Fla. 1956).

First District: Cassedy v. Alland Invs. Corp., 192 So. 3d 651, 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

Second District: re Yanowsky’s Est., 384 So. 2d 1297, 1298-1300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

Third District: D & E Real Est., LLC v. Vitto, 260 So. 3d 429, 434-35 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

Fourth District: Kaminer v. Eckerd Corp. of Fla., Inc., 966 So.2d 452 (4th DCA 2007).

Fifth District: Bryant v. Beary, 766 So. 2d 1157, 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

[/MM_Access_Decision]