Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Riverside Banking Co., 175 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). See also Fritz v. Fritz, 219 So. 3d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (recognizing, though not applicable to the instant case, the existence of the 24 exception in a partnership case where section 620.2001(2) (partnership law) is similar to the Revised LLC Act). Accordingly, we find merit in Ferk Family’s arguments and hold that, under Florida law, it met the exception to the rule against bringing direct claims, and was the...

...a direct action for limited partners, the Court cannot ex post facto retroactively create such standing for a limited partner to sue a limited partnership that had ceased to exist before the RULPA took effect. The 2005 RULPA's test of standing is in § 620.2001, which does not use the same language as Tooley, and the test in § 620.2001 is undoubtedly the one that the Florida courts will use to determine whether limited partners have standing to assert claims against the general partners, beginning with its effective date. The pertinent part of § 620.2001 reads: (1) Subject to subsection (2), a partner may maintain a direct action against the limited partnership or another partner for legal or equitable relief, with or without an accounting as to the partnership's activities, to enforce th...

...ited partnership. (3) The accrual of, and any time limitation on a right of action for a remedy under this section is governed by other law. A right to an accounting upon a dissolution and winding up does not revive a claim barred by law. Fla. Stat. § 620.2001 (emphasis added). The test under § 620.2001 is whether the partner has plead "an actual or threatened injury that is not solely the result of an injury suffered or threatened to be suffered by the limited partnership." Fla. Stat. § 620.2001(2) [21] ....

...irectly injured ... does retain the right to bring an individual action.... Such a claim is distinct from an injury caused to the corporation alone.) [21] At oral argument, when the Court asked Mr. Chimicles if there was any other basis than section § 620.2001(2) that cured the standing problem, he replied there was not....

...Melrose Nursery and the limited partnerships. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting the Brothers’ motion for summary judgment, relying on this Court’s opinion in Dinuro Investments, LLC v. Camacho, 141 So. 3d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), and section 620.2001(2), Florida Statutes (2015). In applying Dinuro and section 620.2001(2), the trial court concluded that based on the allegations of the third amended complaint, the claims asserted are derivative in nature, not direct....

...their respective obligations. 5 Dinuro, 141 So. 3d at 739-40 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted); see also § 607.07401, Fla. Stat. (2015). As to partnerships, the trial court also relied on section 620.2001(2), Florida Statutes (2015), which provides: “A partner commencing a direct action under this section is required to plead and prove an actual or threatened injury that is not solely the result of any injury suffered or...