Clark, Fountain, Littky-Rubin & Whitman

06/04/2026

The power is gone.

The court entered default judgment against the defendant on January 7, 2026, awarding $454,166 in actual damages plus treble damages. The damages were unliquidated and awarded without an evidentiary hearing.

After that judgment was entered, the petitioner filed a notice of appeal at 9:07 am on the morning of February 6, 2026. At 10:30 on that same morning, the trial court entered a discovery order which extended expired pre-judgment discovery for sixty days, and also compelled the petitioner, a New York resident, to appear in person for a deposition in Miami-Dade County, followed by a scheduling order which set the deposition at defense counsel’s office and prohibited any objection to the date or location.

The power is gone. FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY VOLUME 51 NUMBER 18 CASES FROM THE WEEK OF MAY 8, 2026 TRIAL COURT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDER A PARTY AGAINST WHOM

05/28/2026

You’re out too.

This case arose out of a 2015 airplane crash that killed eight people, including the plaintiff’s husband. The widow turned to her aunt, an attorney (Ms. Frexes), who referred the matter to a firm that handles wrongful death and aviation claims. All parties signed a representation agreement compliant with Bar Rule 4-1.5(g), providing for a referral fee arrangement.

After disagreements over the referring attorney’s involvement and work (and the client’s distaste over how much money the attorney received from a partial settlement), the client emailed the referring attorney on January 28, 2019, stating she was terminating her as “co-counsel” and replacing her with someone with more knowledge in the substantive area of law. The referring attorney responded that she was not “co-counsel” but the referring attorney, and that it would “cost” the client to do that. The referring attorney notified lead counsel that she was still the referring attorney.

You’re out too. FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY VOLUME 51 NUMBER 17 CASES FROM THE WEEK OF MAY 1, 2026 A CLIENT MAY DISMISS A REFERRAL ATTORNEY JUST AS THE CLIENT MAY

05/26/2026

Clark, Fountain, Littky-Rubin & Whitman announces that Partner Mark Clark recently secured three separate multi-million dollar confidential settlements in complex commercial trucking cases involving major carriers and multiple defendants.

The cases required extensive investigation into driver qualifications, hours of service compliance, maintenance records, corporate safety practices, and federal trucking regulations.

“These regulations exist to reduce the risks inherent in commercial trucking,” said Mark Clark. “When parties fail to meet these standards, it can lead to devastating outcomes.”

While the terms and identities of the parties remain confidential, these results reflect the firm’s continued commitment to thorough investigation, strategic advocacy, and accountability in complex trucking litigation.

Clark, Fountain, Littky-Rubin & Whitman announces that Partner Mark Clark—has recently secured three multi-million-dollar confidential settlements in

05/21/2026

That just doesn’t add up, I’m afraid.

The case arose from a crash where the defendant pulled onto the right shoulder and then suddenly turned back onto the road, colliding with the plaintiff’s box truck. The plaintiff declined ambulance transport but went to the ER a few hours later with severe neck and back pain and spasms.

The plaintiff had experienced fairly serious injuries in two different accidents that occurred in the five years before this one. The plaintiff’s doctors testified that the surgery the plaintiff underwent resulted from this accident, but the defendant’s doctors testified there were no meaningful differences between the MRIs before and after the subject incident and that there was no objective evidence of permanent injury sustained.

A jury awarded the plaintiff $1,000,000 ($32,000 for past meds, $478,500 for future meds, $161,000 for past lost earnings and $328,500 for future earning capacity) but found the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent injury.

That just doesn’t add up, I’m afraid. FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY VOLUME 51 NUMBER 16 CASES FROM THE WEEK OF APRIL 24, 2026 TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO GRANT

05/14/2026

You need a contractor to have a subcontractor.

The plaintiff was injured while servicing a pool at a Tampa apartment complex. His employer had a pool-maintenance contract with the owner. After the incident, the plaintiff sought and received workers’ compensation benefits through his employer’s policy.

He then sued the property manager, for negligence, the defendant failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn of a dangerous condition.

Concluding that the property manager and pool company were both “subcontractors” on the same property, the trial court granted summary judgment for the property manager based on workers’ comp “horizontal immunity.”

You need a contractor to have a subcontractor. FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY VOLUME 51 NUMBER 15 CASES FROM THE WEEK OF APRIL 17, 2026 NO HORIZONTAL WORKERS’ COMP

05/10/2026

Today, we celebrate the mothers, grandmothers, and maternal figures whose strength, love, and guidance shape our families and communities every day.

From all of us at Clark, Fountain, Littky-Rubin & Whitman, Happy Mother’s Day.

05/07/2026

Your bad faith does not waive my attorney client privilege

This certiorari case arose out of a first-party bad faith lawsuit arising from an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim. The plaintiff was injured in March 2018 by an underinsured driver operating a stolen vehicle. The plaintiff had $200,000 in UM coverage. She provided medical records and bills totaling about $67,000. She demanded the policy limits. The insurer offered $43,000. At trial, the jury heartily disagreed with the carrier and awarded a verdict of $1,676,587.90 against it.

During pretrial proceedings on the bad faith claim, the insurer deposed the attorney who represented the plaintiff in the UM case and asked questions aimed at whether and when the plaintiff would have accepted less than policy limits, along with questions about valuation methods, internal firm communications, and other strategy topics. The UM attorney asserted attorney-client and work product privileges and refused to answer; the insurer moved to compel, arguing the plaintiff waived any privilege “by virtue of” bringing the bad faith lawsuit. The trial court then granted the motion without imposing any meaningful limits or parameters.

Your bad faith does not waive my attorney client privilege FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY VOLUME 51 NUMBER 14 CASES FROM THE WEEK OF APRIL 10, 2026 BAD FAITH

05/05/2026

A routine crash turned into a life threatening emergency when a defective Takata airbag exploded and sent metal shrapnel into a young man’s chest. First responders initially believed he had suffered a gunshot wound. Emergency surgery revealed the true cause, a ruptured airbag inflator that failed to protect and instead inflicted catastrophic harm.

Attorney Daniel D. Walker secured a significant settlement on behalf of this young man, reflecting the severity of his injuries and the preventable nature of the defect. Despite years of recalls, millions of these dangerous airbags remain in vehicles across the country, especially in high heat and humidity environments like Florida.

This case is a stark reminder that defective products can turn survivable accidents into devastating events. If your vehicle may be subject to a Takata recall, do not delay in getting it inspected and repaired.

Clark, Fountain, Littky Rubin and Whitman remains committed to holding manufacturers accountable and protecting consumer safety.

https://www.clarkfountain.com/blog/defective-takata-airbag-leaves-driver-catastrophically-injured-daniel-walker-obtains-significant-settlement/

04/30/2026

Dragged feet do not a stricken pleading make

This case arises from a hurricane remediation bill, where the defendant homeowners refused to pay the plaintiff contractor, disputing the invoice after the work was done. The contractor sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The defendants served a request for production that the plaintiff did not timely respond to. The trial court granted a motion to compel, and on the day responses were due the plaintiff filed a motion to extend the deadline. Before the court could rule on that request, the defendants moved to strike the complaint as a sanction for the untimeliness. The trial court then struck the plaintiff’s complaint, entered default, and entered judgment for the defendants.

Dragged feet do not a stricken pleading make FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY VOLUME 51 NUMBER 13 CASES FROM THE WEEK OF APRIL 3, 2026 TRIAL COURT ERRED BY STRIKING

04/23/2026

Maybe six different courts ARE wrong!

The appellant challenged a final judgment and the accompanying fee award. The court affirmed the judgment “without discussion,” but did address the fee issue in great detail.

The concurrence noted that “as a new court without a large body of prior precedent,” the court was able to “correct a glaring error in Florida law that has persisted for more than six decades.”

The court rejected the long-standing, across-the-board assumption (from district precedent) that a trial court cannot award fees without first conducting an evidentiary hearing and receiving expert testimony on reasonableness. It held a trial court need not always hold a hearing or take expert testimony absent a showing that a hearing or expert testimony is needed to resolve a disputed issue. It noted that expert testimony may be needed to ascertain questions involving things like a multiplier.

Maybe six different courts ARE wrong! FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY VOLUME 51 NUMBER 12 CASES FROM THE WEEK OF MARCH 27, 2026 SIXTH DCA REVERSES FEE AWARD WHERE