My Portfolio (0) A Client-Centered Commitment to Excellence

Innovative Advocacy for Our Clients.

Disclaimer

Disclaimer: Mills Paskert Divers is the trade name used by Mills Paskert Divers P.A. in Florida and Mills Paskert Divers P.C. in Georgia. The information in this website may not be reproduced for any purpose without the express written consent of Mills Paskert Divers. This site is made available to our clients and friends for informational purposes only. The material contained in this website is intended to be general and may not pertain to a specific legal matter. Nothing contained in this website should be substituted for the advice of an attorney nor does it create an attorney-client relationship between any reader and Mills Paskert Divers. Always consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your situation.

CV, BV and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies.

In accordance with Rule 7.1(a)(4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Keith Lichtman Esq. is responsible for the content of this website.

  • Florida Supreme Court Declines to Adopt Florida Legislature’s Daubert Amendment
    For many years Florida followed the Frye standard for the admissibility of expert testimony based upon new or novel scientific evidence.  See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).   In 2013, the Florida Legislature, through what has been dubbed the Daubert Amendment, replaced the Frye standard with the Daubert standard.  The Daubert standard stems from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which established the federal court standard for expert testimony.  Since then, federal courts have continued to apply the Daubert standard, and 36 states have adopted the Daubert standard.

    Read More

    February 16, 2017
  • Motor Vehicle Dealer Bonds: Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal Punts on Attorneys' Fees Issue

    Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently had the opportunity to provide much needed guidance on the issue of whether a statutory motor vehicle dealer bond caps the surety’s liability for plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees at the penal sum of the bond.  Unfortunately, the court found another issue to be dispositive and declined to rule on the attorneys’ fees issue. 

    Read More

    February 15, 2017
  • Southern District of Florida Upholds the Bond Pre-Claim Terms as Conditions Precedent to Filing a Claim Against a Surety

    In Arch Insurance Company v. John Moriarty & Associates of Florida, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-22403-RNS (S.D. Fla. December 12, 2016), Arch Insurance Company (“Arch”) sued John Moriarty & Associates of Florida, Inc. (“Moriarty”) seeking a declaration that there was no coverage under a performance-and-payment bond (“Bond”) that Arch issued on a project naming Moriarty as the obligee.  Moriarty was the general contractor and sought $995,239.83 from Arch, under the performance side of the Bond, related to alleged shortfalls of the subcontractor/principal.

    Read More

    January 4, 2017