Persistence and Strategy Above All Else
Sometimes, the most valuable approach to a case comes from a deep-rooted drive to deliver. In a recent liability defense case, we leveraged a lapse in the responsiveness of the plaintiff to secure summary judgment for our defendants.
In a recent liability defense case, Rissman attorney Michael Masci obtained summary judgment for his defendants and their affiliated insurance company. The case arose from a motor vehicle accident, wherein the plaintiff sustained a number of injuries to their neck, back, and arms.
The defendants served their requests for admission and the plaintiff failed to respond—so the defendants filed the motion for summary judgment.
At the resulting hearing, Michael argued that the time allowed under Rule 1.370(a) had expired with no response from the plaintiff. Moreover, pursuant to the same rule, any requests for admission not responded to within a month are conclusively established. And ultimately, the team argued that more than 550 days had passed between the due date for the plaintiff’s response and the hearing.
Given the surrounding context, the defense argued that the motion should be granted. A few particularly notable facets of the request:
- There was no negligence on the part of the defendants in causing the plaintiff’s injuries
- The plaintiff was at fault for the accident
- The plaintiff didn’t suffer injury, resulting pain and suffering, mental anguish, resulting lengthy hospitalization or care needs, aggravation of any previous conditions, or loss of any past or future earnings as a result of the alleged carelessness and negligence of the defendants
Based on these considerations, we argued that, pursuant to Rule 1.510, summary judgment must be granted as the record evidence didn’t show a genuine dispute concerning any material facts. The court sided with the defense and granted our motion.