Source: https://www.martindale.com/tampa/florida/john-v-garaffa-10001-a/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:48:18+00:00

Document:
Partner John Garaffa wrote a chapter titled Business Interruption and Damage Claims for the 5th Edition of The Complete Guide to Economic Damages.
View Bill Lewis, John Garaffa, and Sarah Burke’s newest contributions to the ABA’s Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal. This comprehensive PDF explains recent developments in property insurance law.
Given the extreme weather that is affecting most of the country and the El Nin o that is expected in 2016, the issues in these cases, as well as other property insurance issues, are likely to arise in different contexts in numerous jurisdictions going forward. This article has cases on a broad range of property insurance disputes across the country.
The history of the pollution exclusion clause in its early forms demonstrates that its purpose was to serve as a broad exclusion for traditional environmentally related damages. The terms of the absolute pollution exclusion suggest that its reach extends well beyond those losses. However, some state and federal courts have cited the early history of the exclusion to narrow its application to traditional environmental pollution. This article notes the impact those disparate views have on coverage for damage due to contaminants.
Business interruption insurance is a class of coverage that is intended to protect the business owner from potential income loss that can flow from damage to insured property. Such property can be directly insured or, in the case of dependent property, can be the property of others that have a direct connection to the business of the insured. In addition, business interruption coverage can protect against damage to the property of key suppliers or customers that, in turn, has a detrimental effect on the insured’s business. Extra expense coverage is a subset of business interruption coverage. It protects the insured against increased expenses that can arise out of the insured’s efforts to return to business after an interruption in operations caused by a covered property loss. These expenses can include costs that are incurred to retain personnel who might otherwise be lost during an interruption, speed the recovery of the business, or maintain operations in a different way, while critical property is repaired or replaced.
On November 30, 2011, the California Supreme Court exercised its discretion and let stand a 13.8 million punitive damage award that was more than 16 times the compensatory damages awarded by the jury. The case, Bullock v. Philip Morris, 1 (Bullock) involved a smoker diagnosed with lung cancer who filed suit against the cigarette manufacturer, seeking damages based on products liability, fraud, and other theories.
On March 31, 2009, the United States Supreme Court dismissed, as improvidently granted, a writ of certiorari in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Williams. While the reason for the court’s action remains a mystery, it seemed to signal an end to the court’s interest in the central constitutional issue in the case: punitive damages. Unfortunately, the court’s decision to abandon the issue leaves both the litigants and observers wondering what, if anything, had been gained by years of decisions, reversals and remands.
On June 25, 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated opinion in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker. The Supreme Court reduced the punitive damage award from 2.5 billion dollars to 507 million dollars, an amount approximately equal to the jury’s award of compensatory damages. While the decision certainly warmed the hearts of Exxon’s previously discomfitted stockholders, the Court’s opinion provides only limited encouragement to defendants involved in the current punitive damage lottery.
As one court has characterized it, a ‘certificate of admission to the bar’ is a pilot’s license which authorizes its possessor to assume full control of the important affairs of others and to guide and safeguard them when, without such assistance, they would be helpless. In re Discipline of Laprath, 670 N.W.2d 41 (S.D. 2003). While the freedom suggested by that imagery might be a bit overstated, the assertion that the qualifications of a counsel assuming responsibility for a case are critical to the potential outcome is not.
September 19, 2006 PUBLICATION Remanded in Light of State Farm v. Campbell: The Opportunity For Further Illumination Presented by Williams v. Philip Morris Inc.
Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne have once again brought Florida insurance law under the microscope. In the midst of this examination is Florida’s valued policy law. For most insureds and their attorneys, there is an expectation that insurance will be available to return the insured’s property to its pre-storm condition. Unfortunately, even for professionals, there are common misconceptions about the interplay of contract and law in this area. One such common misconception is the proper application of Florida’s valued policy law.
Given that the Utah Supreme Court (“Utah”) previously reinstated a 145 million punitive damages award in favor of the Campbells, it is not surprising that on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, this same state high court goes to great lengths to justify the largest punitive damages award it believes could possibly survive further constitutional review.
In Liggett Group Inc. v. Engle, the Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal reversed the largest punitive damage award in history. The circumstances of the award indicate it would have bankrupted the defendants and was, in essence, a civil death sentence. If that were the only error, Engle would merely mark another notch in the continued upward spiral of American jury awards. However, the compounded procedural and constitutional errors in Engle make it particularly useful for those who wish to examine the pros and cons of the current system of punitive damages.
August 13, 2003 PUBLICATION Reflections - Thirty Years After Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co.
July 13, 2017 BLOG POST Ransomware is taking the world by storm; does insurance respond?
November 11, 2016 SPOTLIGHT John Garaffa Earns Veterans Network Meritorious Service Award!
John Garaffa from Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig along with co-presenter Rabih Hamadi presented in Orlando, FL at the ABA Spring Meeting on the topic of Whose Money is it? Recognizing Insurable Interest, Lienholders, and Others on April 7, 2017.
John V. Garaffa from Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig along with Mathew Scott and Hillard M. Sterling, were panelists in Uncasville, CT at the 6th Annual Cyber Liabilities Insurance ExecuSummit on the topic of After the Breach: Response and Subrogation Strategy on March 21, 2017.
Butler has been awarded the 2018 TVC Chairman’s Award in recognition for our service provided to veterans and their families.
Now in its fourth edition, The Comprehensive Guide to Economic damages includes a chapter authored by Butler’s own John Garaffa. The guide serves as a deep resource for financial experts and attorneys seeking guidance on damage calculations. A digital download of the publication is available here, and physical copies will be released later in May.
December 23, 2015 NEWS John V. Garaffa recently authored When the Policy Follows the Property: The Challenges Posed by Mortgagee Rights.
May 21, 2008 NEWS Louisiana Supreme Court cites Butler attorney John Garaffa as authority on Gulf Coast valued policy laws.
Excellent attorney and a gentleman.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V.