by Gregory Holder, Esq.
The Florida Supreme Court
Effective May 1, 2021, the Florida Supreme Court (with Justice Jorge Labarga dissenting) has, on its own motion, amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 (Summary Judgment). This rule change now aligns Florida’s summary judgment standard with that of the federal courts and of 38 states that have already adopted the federal summary judgment standard.
The purpose of both the Florida and Federal rules of civil procedure are “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.010; cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. Florida’s Rule 1.510(c) requires summary judgment where the record evidence shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Although the Florida and Federal rules are textually similar, there are three key consequential differences which are noteworthy:
- First, Florida trial and appellate courts have repeatedly declined to “recognize the fundamental similarity between a motion for directed verdict and a motion for summary judgment.” (Supreme Court of Florida, SC20-1490, December 31, 2020). By way of contrast, our U.S. Supreme Court has held that the federal summary judgment standard “mirrors” the standard for directed verdict. Thus, the inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250.
- Second, since 1966, Florida courts have required the moving party to conclusively disprove the nonmovants’ theory of the case in order to eliminate any issue of fact. This now eliminates the old Florida Rule requirement that the moving party support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponents claim.
- Third, Florida courts have adopted an expansive and somewhat liberal view of what constitutes a genuine issue of material fact. By contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court describes the federal standard for summary judgment as whether “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” This change will significantly impact insurance defense cases by providing the trial courts with greater discretion to truly evaluate the evidence and properly rule upon these critical motions that potentially end the case before trial.
By making this modification to the Florida Rule, our state Supreme Court found that the Florida courts’ interpretation of the summary judgment rule had failed to contribute to the goal of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. The goal of the Florida Supreme Court and all Florida courts is to “improve the fairness and efficiency of Florida’s civil justice system, to relieve parties from the expense and burdens of meritless litigation, and to save the work of juries for cases where there are real factual disputes that need resolution” (Supreme Court of Florida, SC20-1490).
Under the proposed Florida Rule 1.510(c), “when opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 308 (2007). The Florida Supreme Court has invited comments on this amendment and its implementation which must be filed with the Court on or before March 2, 2021.
Former Hillsborough County Circuit Court Judge Gregory Holder, served as a jurist for 26 years and retired from the bench as of December 31, 2020. He is now with the Zinober Diana & Monteverde law firm with offices in Ft. Lauderdale, St. Petersburg, and Tampa. Greg has been described as a fierce and fair jurist, presiding over thousands of cases, many of which were property insurance disputes. Greg can be reached at the Tampa offices of ZDM at, [email protected]; (813) 642-4229. LMA welcomes his wisdom and input in the work of our readers and insurance professionals.
(Publisher’s note: LMA congratulates the Zinober Diana & Monteverde firm for recognizing Judge Holder’s unparalleled commitment to the legal profession as he enters private practice with their firm.)
LMA Newsletter of 1-4-21
