I do see two sides…

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 51 NUMBER 29

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF JULY 24, 2026

SUMMARY JUDGMENT REVERSED ON CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE—EVIDENCE SUPPORTED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM IN A LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO HER

Christie v. Publix Supermarkets, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1449 (Fla. 5th DCA July 17, 2026):

The plaintiff filed a premises liability action after slipping and falling inside one of the defendant’s grocery stores. The plaintiff alleged that a dangerous condition on the floor (a puddle of water that was “maybe 4 feet by 4 feet”) caused the fall and that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. The Publix employee stocking the water shelves testified he didn’t see any water on the floor. There was also evidence that water was leaking from the drain under the bunker.

The defendant successfully moved for summary judgment.

The court noted that its role in reviewing a summary judgment is limited; it cannot weigh evidence, instead only conclude “whether it is so one-sided that the result of any trial is inevitable.”

On issues of constructive notice, it is rare that there will be direct evidence of how long a substance was on the ground and the mere presence of the substance is not enough to establish it. In cases involving large amounts of water, the size of the puddle is relevant to the inference drawn regarding the length of time the substance was on the floor, as is the presence of an employee in the vicinity of the area where the fall occurred.

Because viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff in this case supported the inference that the water was there (or a puddle had formed) and that water had been leaking, it was error to grant summary judgment on the issue of constructive notice.

TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO MAKE FINDINGS TO SUPPORT SECTION 57.105 FEES NECESSITATED REVERSAL

Citizens Property Insurance Corp. v. Quality Mold Finders Corp., 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1445 (Fla. 3d DCA July 15, 2026):

Following water damage to the insured property, the insured assigned post-loss insurance benefits to the plaintiff remediation company so it could perform mold inspection and remediation services.

After a dispute arose concerning payment, the company prevailed in litigation against the defendant insurer and sought to recover attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105.

While the trial court awarded fees, it failed to make specific findings that the insurance company’s affirmative defense “when initially presented to the trial court or at any time before trial (a) was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense or (b) would not be supported by the application of then-exiting law to those material facts.”

To award attorney’s fees under this statute, the court must make specific findings of bad faith and should recite the facts on which it bases its conclusions in the order awarding such fees.

The court reversed and remanded for the trial court’s consideration.