Thomas W. Paradise - Vernis & Bowling

Thomas W. Paradise, Esq.
Managing Attorney
Vernis & Bowling of Broward, P.A. 5821 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: (954) 927-5330
Email: TParadise@Florida-Law.com
Fax: (954) 927-5320
Website: www.national-law.com
V-Card Email LinkedIn

Verdicts and Dispositions

Jose Lopez v. Target
Tom Paradise and Megan Pariti (Hollywood, FL) (Premises Liability) obtained Summary Judgment in a Spoliation of Evidence claim. The Plaintiff, Jose Lopez, age 79, claimed to have slipped and fallen on a clear liquid in a Target store on December 18, 2022. Target sought Summary Judgment contending that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate actual or constructive notice as required by Florida Statute 768.0755. In response, Plaintiff argued that Target spoliated evidence by not preserving enough of the surveillance video and that Target employees were in the aisle minutes before the incident occurred.

Despite the Plaintiff’s preservation request for three hours of video (2 hours before the incident and 1 hour after), which was received by Target days after the incident occurred, Target only preserved one hour of footage (30 minutes before and 30 minutes after the incident). The store’s surveillance, however, only showed part of the incident since the area where the fall occurred was obscured by a merchandise display. As a result, the floor and any substance that may have been on the floor could not be seen on the surveillance video. Target argued that even if there were a duty to retain additional footage, the Court would need to speculate on the value of such footage. The Plaintiff’s assertion that more footage would have revealed the source of the water was speculative, given the obscured view in the existing footage. Additionally, there was no indication in the surveillance video that any customers or Target employees observed a spill or substance on the floor preceding the incident. While Target employees did traverse the area shortly before the fall, an overlooked detail by the plaintiff was that subsequent guests also passed through the area, potentially creating the hazard after the employees’ inspection.

The Plaintiff failed to provide evidence regarding the creation of the hazard, its duration on the floor, whether any Target employee was aware of it, or any history of similar incidents in the area. Target’s motion for Summary Judgment was granted.
Altheda Henry v. Panda Express
Tom Paradise and Tommie DePrima (Hollywood, FL) (Slip and Fall) obtained a Defense Verdict on behalf of their client, Panda Express, in a negligence action brought by Plaintiff, Altheda Henry, against Defendant, Panda Express, in a jury trial that took place in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, between June 6th through June 9th, 2023.

The Plaintiff claimed that she sustained injuries as a result of an incident that occurred on July 25, 2019, at Panda Express. The Plaintiff, Altheda Henry, was a Doordash courier and went to the Panda Express restaurant to pick up a food order. As she entered the restaurant, she alleges that she slipped and fell on a wet floor which caused her to sustain certain injuries. Ms. Henry alleges that Panda Express negligently failed to correct a dangerous condition about which it either knew or should have known by the use of reasonable care. As a result of the incident, Ms. Henry claimed that she severely injured her left knee, sustaining a torn meniscus which required surgery, and an injury to her hip and lower back which required prolonged physical therapy and injections to both areas. The past medical bills were in excess of $72,000.00 and there was a claim for future medical expenses as well. Panda Express took the position that they did not have notice of the hazardous condition on the floor and that the Plaintiff may have tripped or slipped as a result of the shoes that she was wearing at the time. The defense was also able to show some inconsistencies in her medical records regarding causation.

In less than 25 minutes, the jury found in favor of Panda Express with a finding of no liability. Due to an expired PFS, Defendant’s motion seeking the recovery of Panda Express’ attorney’s fees and costs is pending.

Plaintiff’s Demand at Trial: A range was submitted between $250,000.00 and $1,000,000.00.
Summary Judgment Confirmed in Appellate Ruling of Sexual Abuse Claim
Tommie DePrima and Tom Paradise (Hollywood, FL) (Appellate) previously obtained a Summary Judgment ruling in favor of the Defendant in a case involving the alleged sexual abuse of a minor female student by her school coach, over a two-year period. The student brought a lawsuit alleging negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The student’s mother made a corresponding claim for loss of filial consortium. Upon deposing the Plaintiff, defense counsel confirmed that the alleged abuse had ended more than four years prior to the Plaintiff bringing the lawsuit. As such, defense counsel argued that because the Plaintiff had brought the lawsuit when the four-year statute of limitation had expired, Summary Judgment was proper as to all claims related to the alleged abuse. In response thereto, the Plaintiffs argued that while the sexual contact had ended over four years before the Complaint was filed, under the continuing torts doctrine the ‘improper relationship’ (which was not limited to the sexual contact) continued beyond the final sexual encounter. Plaintiffs also attempted to argue that based upon their negligent retention claim, and the fact that the coach was not terminated until a year after the relationship had been known, that the statute of limitations had not run out at the time of the filing of the lawsuit. Prior to the Court’s ruling on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs demanded $1,000,000 to settle the instant claim. The Court thereafter granted the Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment as to all claims.

Appellate Update: The Plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal before the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and argued that the continuing torts doctrine should apply. The Plaintiffs also attempted to argue that the judge who presided over the summary judgment motion should have recused himself due to potential conflicts and/or bias that the judge may have had with Plaintiff’s counsel. The appellate court affirmed the lower’s court’s ruling on all issues. Plaintiff’s petition to the Florida Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of this case was also denied. The Defendant is currently seeking all its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the case given the Plaintiff’s denial of a previously filed proposal for settlement.
June Scott and Patrick Scott vs. USAA Casualty Insurance Company
Tom Paradise and Tommie DePrima (Hollywood, FL) (Automobile Liability) obtained a favorable Jury Verdict after a 5-day trial. The Plaintiff claimed serious injuries to her right hip, elbow, wrist, a lumbar herniation and psychological injuries as a result of being hit by a car as a pedestrian in a parking lot. The Plaintiff contended she was crushed and pinned between the vehicle that hit her and another parked vehicle. She was claimed ongoing, severe pain to her right hip and low back. Plaintiff’s husband also filed a loss of consortium claim.

Before trial the Plaintiffs’ settled the claim with the tortfeasor for $100,000.00. The Plaintiffs also filed a claim against USAA, their UM/UIM carrier, and demanded the stacked policy limits of $600,000.00. The Plaintiffs always demanded the policy limits so the matter proceeded to trial against the UM/UIM carrier, USAA. The insurance carrier admitted fault on behalf of the tortfeasor but disputed that the accident caused all the damages that were being alleged by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff was claiming approximately $50,000.00 in past medical expenses and $60,000.00 in future medical care, both of which included the cost of psychological care and counseling. Prior to the incident, the Plaintiff suffered from pre-existing mental health issues which she had sought treatment for before the subject incident. At trial, the defense also had an expert physician testify that the Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain were not supported by the objective findings of the Plaintiff’s medical records and imaging studies. It was further indicated by the defense’s expert that PRP treatments, which the Plaintiff was contending helped with her pain, were not reasonable and necessary given that these types of injections are still deemed experimental by the larger medical community.

At the close of trial, the Plaintiff asked for $1 million in total damages to the Plaintiffs. The jury returned a total verdict of $29,000.00 for past medical care only, with a finding of no permanent injury. The verdict was less than the underlying tortfeasor’s liability limit so USAA obtained a defense verdict. The Defendant, USAA, also filed a PFS when the claim was first filed so it will be filing a motion to recover almost all of the fees and costs incurred in the defense of the claim.
Sebastian Mccall, Jr. v. School Board of Broward County
Thomas W. Paradise and Lauren Stone (Hollywood, FL) (Appeal/Governmental Law) obtained Final Summary Judgment in the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

Plaintiff, Sebastian McCall, was a 20-year-old spectator who attended a basketball game at Blanche Ely High School in Pompano Beach, Florida on January 12, 2013. The basketball game was against Deerfield Beach High School, which the Plaintiff alleged was a rivalry game. At the conclusion of the basketball game, while McCall was walking on the sidewalk while leaving campus, an altercation broke out and a crowd of 50-60 people, who were ahead of him and who had already exited the school’s campus, suddenly turned and began to run back onto campus. While trying to run with the crowd, the Plaintiff fell causing him to sustain severe personal injuries. As a result of the incident, the Plaintiff brought a negligence action against the School Board of Broward County, Florida under a theory of negligent security. As a result of the incident, the Plaintiff suffered a right shoulder dislocation and a fracture to his right hip.

The Plaintiff alleged that the school breached its duty of care to the Plaintiff to provide a reasonably safe environment within the bounds of the school by failing to have adequate security and crowd control as this particular game against Deerfield Beach High School was “a long standing and hotly contested rivalry.” More specifically, the Plaintiff alleged that the school should have had more police officers present at the subject basketball game. The School Board of Broward County argued that it had a security plan in place for every game, which included the school’s security team and police officers. In particular, the evidence showed that a meeting was held prior to the basketball season to develop a security plan for each home game, which included the number of police officers present at each game. As such, the School Board further argued that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by sovereign immunity pursuant to Fla. Statute §768.28 as discretionary/planning level functions of the government are immune from suit and that the waiver of sovereign immunity only applies to operational level functions. The School Board argued that the Plaintiff did not establish any evidence that the School Board failed in its operation of its security on the date of loss.

The School Board filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on sovereign immunity as the Plaintiff’s claim that the School Board should have had more police officers present at the basketball game was a planning level decision. The trial court entered an order denying the motion holding that the School Board’s decision as to security was operational. The School Board appealed the trial court’s order.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling denying the School Board’s Motion for Summary Judgment as it was determined that the School Board was entitled to sovereign immunity and that Final Summary Judgment should be entered in favor of the School Board of Broward County.
Jose Rosales v. Castle Key Insurance Company
Evan Zuckerman and Tom Paradise (Hollywood, FL) (1st Party Property) obtained a defense verdict on behalf of Castle Key Insurance Co. in the defense of a 1st party property damage claim litigated against the Strems Law Firm.

The defense verdict was obtained following a West Palm Beach jury trial in the case of Rosales, Jose v. Castle Key Insurance Company. Plaintiff Jose Rosales filed a claim with Castle Key seeking over $43,000.00 for damages caused by a washing machine supply line leak. The file was investigated by Castle Key’s special investigations unit with the help of V&B attorneys due to the Plaintiff’s multiple claims and failures to comply with the carrier’s pre-suit requests for information. After three years of litigation, the case proceeded to trial with a $250,000.00 final demand from Plaintiff’s counsel.

At trial, Plaintiff testified that a high-volume leak damaged his garage, laundry room, and kitchen, supporting that assertion with testimony from expert general contractor Edgard de Olazabal. Plaintiff’s wife Marisol Rosales also testified about the post-incident clean-up and resulting damage. The defense presented testimony from field adjuster Keith Hardy and engineer S. Selim Cerci, both of whom stated that the damages they observed were not consistent with the leak described by the Plaintiff. The jury returned a defense verdict after deliberating for about thirty minutes, finding that the Plaintiff failed to prove that the claimed damages actually resulted from the leak. Our motion for attorney’s fees and costs is pending pursuant to an expired proposal for settlement.
Summary Judgment obtained in alleged sexual abuse claim
Tom Paradise (Hollywood, FL) (Governmental Law) obtained a Summary Judgment ruling in favor of the Defendant in a case involving the alleged sexual abuse over a two year period of a minor female student by her school coach. The student brought a lawsuit alleging negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The student’s mother made a corresponding claim for loss of filial consortium. Upon deposing the Plaintiff, defense counsel confirmed that the alleged abuse had ended over four years prior to the Plaintiff bringing the lawsuit. As such, defense counsel argued that because the Plaintiff had brought the lawsuit when the four-year statute of limitation had already expired, Summary Judgment was proper as to all claims related to the alleged abuse. In response thereto, the Plaintiffs argued that while the sexual contact had ended over four years before the Complaint was filed, under the continuing torts doctrine the ‘improper relationship’ (which was not limited to the sexual contact) continued beyond the final sexual encounter. Plaintiffs also attempted to argue that based upon their negligent retention claim, and the fact that the coach was not terminated until a year after the relationship had been known, that the statute of limitations had not run at the time of the filing of the lawsuit.

Prior to the Court’s ruling on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs demanded $1,000,000.00 to settle the instant claim. The Court thereafter granted the Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment as to all claims. The Plaintiffs have since filed an Appeal which is currently pending before the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Victorene Barronette v. Target
Tom Paradise & Belinda Scott (Hollywood, FL) (Premises Liability) obtained Summary Judgment in Federal Court, Southern District, in the premises liability matter of Victorene Barronette v. Target wherein the Plaintiff slipped on a puddle of clear water in the checkout lane. The incident was captured by Target’s cameras but no explicit source of the spill was depicted in the video footage. Plaintiff testified that there were marks from a shopping cart and the mark from her own shoe in the water. She later underwent three surgeries and amassed medical bills of $380,000.00, with a fourth surgical recommendation. Plaintiff claimed that the water was on the floor for a long time (as evidenced by the cart marks) and was missed by Target employees who walked through the checkout lane in the minutes preceding the incident. Because the video does not depict any of the employees explicitly looking down on the floor, Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the employees walking through the subject area did not represent an adequate/reasonable inspection. Defense counsel emphasized Plaintiff’s description of the water (marks from only one cart and only her own footprint), the absence of the footprints of the TMs who had walked through the aisle, and the footage of the moments beforehand. The video shows that immediately before Plaintiff entered the aisle (and after the Target employees had walked through), a guest had a shopping cart containing a (1) liter jug of water. That cart rested over the location where Plaintiff would later fall for two minutes before that guest left and the Plaintiff approached: conceivably the moment that the spill was created. As such the Defendant argued that the spill was created after the employees walked through and Target was unaware of and not liable for same. The Court agreed with defense counsel and granted the Defendant’s MSJ and the published opinion is available at Barronette v. Target Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161006 (S.D. Fla. 2018).
Plaintiff v Target Corporation (negligence)
Tom Paradise and Belinda Scott (Broward/Ft. Lauderdale, FL) (Premises Liability) obtained a defense summary judgement in an action against Target Corporation for negligence.

Plaintiff contended that she slipped and fell due to a substance on the floor. However, after the incident the Plaintiff claimed she suffered amnesia with regard to the details of her fall and could not state what she slipped or tripped on. Plaintiff sustained a broken nose and a broken wrist which required surgery, numerous lacerations and an injury to her lower back.

Plaintiff could not state what caused her to fall, or if she tripped or slipped, and at no point did the Plaintiff actually observe a foreign substance on the floor. Target filed a motion for final summary judgment on the basis that the Plaintiff was unable to prove actual or constructive notice on the part of Target. The Court, while noting that this is a hard case,” found that there was simply no evidence that Target failed to do something that a reasonable store would have done. The Court noted that Plaintiff had not met her burden to produce evidence giving rise to an inference that the alleged foreign substance had been on the floor for a sufficient length of time to charge Target with constructive knowledge. Accordingly, the Court granted Target’s motion for summary judgment.
Social Media posts by the Plaintiff ARE Discoverable
Nicolette John, Esq. and Thomas Paradise, Esq. (Broward/Hollywood, Florida) represented Target Corporation and successfully defended against an appeal ( Writ of Certiorari) filed by a Plaintiff in a case where a personal injury Plaintiff objected to providing photographs which she had posted to Facebook. The Plaintiff, who was making a claim for personal injuries, mental anguish, and pain and suffering, was allegedly involved in a slip and fall incident that occurred at a Target store. We sought to compel the production of the photographs posted to the Plaintiff’s Facebook account. The Plaintiff objected but the trial court overruled the Plaintiff’s objections and ordered the production of any photographs which depict the Plaintiff posted on her social media accounts as well as on her cell phone. The Plaintiff immediately appealed and filed the Writ to the Fourth District Court of Appeals with regard to her social media postings only arguing that her Facebook settings were set to private and that therefore the trial court’s order unconstitutionally invaded her right to privacy and violated the Federal Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. __ 2701-2712. In its 11 page detailed opinion the appellate court ruled that the photographs being sought were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as they are powerfully relevant to the damage issues in the lawsuit” and further stated that there is no better portrayal of what an individual’s life was like than those photographs the individual has chosen to share through social media.” Please see our article in this issue for more details.
Nancy Garofolo v. Target
Thomas Paradise, Esq. and Belinda Scott, Esq. (Broward/Hollywood, FL)(Slip and Fall)obtained a Dismissal in the case styled Nancy Garofolo v. Target.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit based on an incident that occurred at the cashier at a Target store. The Plaintiff, while loading items on the conveyor belt at the cash register, slipped’ (but did not fall) due to what she described as a dirty, slippery, wet substance on the floor, and sustained personal injuries. In her Answers to Interrogatories, Plaintiff claimed to have injured her right ankle, right knee and also allegedly sustained a large tear in her right shoulder. We had opposed the production of the surveillance video of the subject incident until after Plaintiff’s deposition in order to verify her testimony: the video called into question the Plaintiff’s claims, as it simply showed her looking down and stepping in/looking at something on the floor. However, during the course of discovery the Court ordered Target to disclose the surveillance video of the subject incident prior to the Plaintiff’s deposition.

Within days of receiving the video, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a Voluntary Dismissal given that the video undermined the Plaintiff’s claims with regard to what had happened at the time of the incident.
Juana Vasquez v. Target
Thomas Paradise, Esq. and Belinda Scott, Esq. (Broward/Hollywood, FL) (Slip and Fall) obtained a Dismissal in the case styled Juana Vasquez v. Target.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit based on negligence, claiming that she slipped and fell on a dirty’ substance on Target’s floor. Plaintiff indicated that she had been pushing a shopping cart, when she slipped and fell on what she described to be pink yogurt that she believed to have been on the store’s floor for a long time based on the fact that it appeared to be somewhat dried/hardened. Plaintiff allegedly injured her neck and back as well as her right knee. During her sworn deposition and in her Answers to Interrogatories, Plaintiff denied ever having injured her neck and back at any time prior to the date of loss. However, during the course of discovery, we learned that the Plaintiff had actually been involved in at least two prior motor accidents as well as a prior slip and fall incident, wherein she sustained injuries to her neck and back.

Based on the foregoing evidence, we filed a Motion to Dismiss for Fraud based on the inconsistencies noted above. We obtained a copy of Plaintiff’s deposition transcript from the litigation which ensued from her second car accident, wherein she acknowledged neck and back injuries and extensive treatment. In our motion, we also pointed out the fact that the Plaintiff’s description of the subject incident (that she slipped and fell to the floor despite attempting to regain her balance) was inconsistent with what was shown in the surveillance video of same (Plaintiff merely slipped, did not fall). We also requested that the Court enter an Order entitling Target to attorney’s fees based on the fact that Target was forced to defend a matter premised on Plaintiff’s fraudulent claim.

The Court granted our motion and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The Court has not yet ruled on the issue of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Anthony Jackson v. C&S Restaurants LLC d/b/a Burger King
Thomas Paradise, Esq. and Belinda Scott, Esq. (Broward/Hollywood, FL) (Foodborne Illness) obtained a Summary Judgment in the case styled Anthony Jackson v. C&S Restaurants LLC d/b/a Burger King.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit based on allegations that he became seriously ill after eating at the Defendant’s Burger King restaurant. The Plaintiff indicated that as a result of the food he consumed from Burger King, he was hospitalized for a week and diagnosed with food poisoning. During discovery the Plaintiff made numerous allegations regarding the incident and the illness that he allegedly suffered. However, we were able to establish through the medical records and the Plaintiff’s own testimony that the Plaintiff was unable to prove his case, specifically as to the issue of causation. Additionally, we filed an affidavit from the president/owner of C&S Restaurants indicating there had been no complaints of food poisonings on the day in question or for the entire year at the restaurant. Based on the above evidence or lack thereof, we filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the Plaintiff’s lack of direct or circumstantial evidence that his illness was caused by the food purchased at Burger King. The judge agreed with our position and granted our Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant.
Plaintiff v Broward County School Board
Tom Paradise and Lauren Stone (Broward/Ft. Lauderdale, FL) (Negligent Supervision) obtained a defense verdict in favor of the Broward County School Board. Plaintiff was a student at Blanche Ely High School when she was attacked by a group of students in December 2007. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff brought an action against the School Board of Broward County, Florida, under a theory of negligent supervision and against the individual students for assault and battery. A default judgment was entered against the students for their failure to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. As a result of the incident Plaintiff suffered multiple hematomas and contusions to her facial and torso area as well as alleged loss of vision. Plaintiff was also diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Plaintiff utilized three experts to establish damages. During cross examination it was pointed out to the jury that Plaintiff’s PTSD symptoms were questionable and, given that the Plaintiff experienced other traumatic episodes in her life, Dr. Tarafdar could not distinguish the subject event being the potential cause of the alleged PTSD over another. Plaintiff also retained a vocational rehabilitation consultant, Ira Morris, who opined that as a result of the attack Plaintiff had a loss of future earning capacity. Mr. Morris testified that Plaintiff’s economic damages totaled $95,000. Roderick Moe, Plaintiff’s third retained expert, is an economist who testified that the present value of Plaintiff’s economic damages totaled $140,000. Plaintiff’s counsel requested $280,000 for all damages.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, finding that they were not negligent. The jury awarded $6,910 for loss of personal property and past medical expenses against the defaulted perpetrators. The School Board has a motion pending for attorney’s fees and costs from an expired Proposal of Settlement.
UPS v Defendant (a QBE insured)
Tom Paradise, Lauren Stone and Nicolette John (Broward/Ft. Lauderdale, FL) (Litigation) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment on a contractual indemnification issue. Plaintiff UPS filed an action indicating they were entitled to approximately $235,000.00 ($105,000.00 was for attorney’s fees and costs) from our client, a QBE insured. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and defense responded in kind. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement was denied, but that of the defense was granted. After Final Judgment is entered, we will seek attorney’s fees and costs.

Areas Of Practice

Appellate Practice
Bad Faith/Extra Contractual Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Construction and Construction Defect Litigation
Cyber Security & Data Privacy
Errors & Omissions Liability (E&O)
First and Third Party Property and Casualty Claims
Government Law
Liquid Propane (LP) Gas Defense
Medical Malpractice
Premises Liability
Product Liability
SIU/Suspicious & Fraudulent Claims
Trucking
Wrongful Death

Bar & Court Admission

Florida, 1991
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Florida Supreme Court (includes all Florida State Courts)

Education

Graduate:
Stetson University College of Law, J.D., 1991
Undergraduate:
Tulane University, B.A. Degree in Management, 1988

Thomas W. Paradise was born in Houghton, Michigan and raised in Boca Raton, Florida. He graduated in 1988 from Tulane University, A.B. Freeman School of Business with a B.A. Degree in Management, Accounting Major. While at Tulane, Tom was awarded for academic achievement and was the Vice-President of the Beta Alpha Psi Honorary Fraternity. He then attended Stetson University College of Law and received his Juris Doctorate in 1991.

Tom Paradise is an AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rated by Martindale-Hubbell, which is an award that identifies attorneys with the highest legal ability and signifies expertise, experience, integrity and overall professional excellence. He is also listed in the Bar Registry of Preeminent Lawyers, A.M. Best’s Recommended Insurance Attorneys and named in “South Florida’s Top Rated Lawyers”. Tom specializes in civil litigation with an emphasis in the areas of personal injury, premises liability, automobile accidents, negligent security and supervision, commercial trucking accidents, governmental tort liability, product liability and insurance subrogation. His practice includes formulating polices/procedures and managing risk concerns for major corporations and governmental entities. He also defends insurance companies in first party property claims which covers a wide array of issues such as breach of contract, appraisals, declaratory actions, fraud, arson and bad faith. Tom has been a speaker at numerous conferences and has presented legal/educational seminars for insurance companies, third party administrators and self-insureds throughout the United States.

He was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1991, and practices before all Florida State Courts, including the Third and Fourth District Court of Appeals. Tom also has an active Federal Court practice and is admitted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Tom began his practice with a prominent Miami civil defense firm where he worked in the areas of insurance defense, personal injury, commercial litigation, and in complex litigation involving shoddy home construction and Hurricane Andrew. His practice at that time included several class actions involving catastrophic property damage and significant insurance subrogation. Tom joined Vernis & Bowling as a Managing Attorney in October 2002.

Tom has participated in the Broward Community Development Corporation and the Dade County Bar Association Put Something Back Program. He is a current or past member of the Broward County Bar Association, Miami-Dade County Bar Association, American Bar Association, Defense Research Institute, Counsel for Litigation Management and the South Florida Claims Association where he served as President in 2012.

Footer