We represented a defense lawyer in a malpractice matter in which he faced a $535 million claim arising from an underlying auto claim with unusual and aggravating facts. The Plaintiff alleged the attorney’s misinterpretation of a settlement offer led to the defendant’s exposure to an excess judgment. Summary judgment was sought and subsequently granted by the trial court, and the case was dismissed. Plaintiff appealed, and on October 27, 2023, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment ruling.

This was a medical malpractice case that was transferred to Wicker Smith. Previous counsel had missed the deadline to request voluntary arbitration by one business day. The Defendant, who we represented, sought to enforce the cap on noneconomic damages that applies when a malpractice plaintiff rejects an offer of voluntary arbitration. The trial court enforced the cap.

On appeal, following oral argument, as well as the filing of an amicus brief for the Plaintiff, the appellate court affirmed. The decision saved our client over $2 million.

This appeal arose out of a verdict for the Plaintiff following a jury trial in an automobile accident case. During trial, the Plaintiff’s counsel showed his expert an MRI image that the expert had not previously reviewed. The expert changed his testimony based on the review. The trial court denied the request for a new trial based on the new testimony.

On review, the appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial. The appellate court agreed that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the expert testimony. The appellate court held that even though Wicker Smith’s trial counsel had skillfully undercut the expert’s testimony on cross-examination, the Defendant had still been prejudiced by the mid-trial change in testimony.

The former Chief Operating Officer of a bank corporation sued the bank and its Chief Executive Officer for defamation, claiming that the CEO made false statements about him to the corporation’s board of directors that destroyed the plaintiff’s reputation in the banking community. The plaintiff sought a seven-figure amount from the CEO. Wicker Smith obtained summary judgment in favor of the CEO.

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment. It held that the alleged statements did not constitute a “publication” to a third party. The court agreed with Wicker Smith’s argument extending previous case law, which held that statements made to certain employees of a corporation are statements to the corporation itself, to this case even though the Board of Directors was comprised of a majority of non-employee directors.