Kory R. Watson - Vernis & Bowling

Kory R. Watson, Esq.
Attorney
Vernis & Bowling of St. Petersburg, P.A. 696 1st Avenue N., 1st Floor St Petersburg, FL 33701
Phone: (727) 443-3377
Email: KWatson@Florida-Law.com
Fax: (727) 443-6828
Website: www.national-law.com
V-Card Email

Verdicts and Dispositions

Berger, Nicholas v. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (America) and Mauricio Cabada
Amanda Brennan, Esq. and Kory Watson, Esq. (St. Petersburg, FL) (Negligence) obtained an order granting Final Summary Judgment on behalf of Defendant Mauricio Cabada in an action for gross negligence. The cause of action arose from a golf cart accident that occurred on May 22, 2019, when Defendant Cabada reversed a golf cart and struck Nicholas Berger in the leg while both were in the course of employment with Ritchie Brothers Auctioneers.

Prior to initiating this lawsuit against Defendant Ritchie Brothers Auctioneers and Defendant Cabada, Plaintiff accepted workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries. Under Florida’s workers’ compensation statute, workers’ compensation benefits are the only means of recovery against a co-employee unless the co-employee acted with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence.

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Cabada acted with gross negligence when he violently struck Plaintiff with the golf cart after he abruptly reversed the cart without first checking his surroundings and determining whether Plaintiff was clear of the rear of the cart. The only evidence in the record were deposition transcripts of Plaintiff and Defendant Cabada. It is undisputed that Defendant Cabada was driving Plaintiff to an auction lot at the time of the accident and that Plaintiff was seated behind Defendant Cabada facing the rear of the cart. Plaintiff testified only that when he arrived at his destination, the cart stopped, and he hopped off. Defendant Cabada testified that as soon as he stopped the cart, another passenger began screaming because a truck was reversing towards the golf cart. Defendant Cabada looked behind the cart, thought he saw Plaintiff in the cart, told the passengers to remain seated, and then put the cart in reverse. The cart did not have rearview mirrors, but it did have a loud reverse alarm to alert anyone within the cart’s path. Notwithstanding the allegations in his Complaint, Plaintiff’s testimony was silent as to Defendant Cabada’s actions leading to the accident.

To establish gross negligence, a plaintiff must show (1) a composite of circumstances, which together, constitute an imminent or clear and present danger amounting to more than a normal and usual peril, (2) an awareness of such danger, and (3) a conscious, voluntary act or omission that occurs in a manner evincing a conscious disregard of consequences.

In the Motion for Final Summary Judgment, we argued that the record lacked any evidence of gross negligence. To the contrary, Defendant’s undisputed testimony established that he acted with due care under the circumstances. The Honorable Dana Moore Tenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Polk County agreed. According to Judge Moore, no reasonable jury could find that Defendant Cabada was grossly negligent.
Crestline Hotels & Resorts, LLC v. Estate of Paul James McKee
Kory Watson and Lori Conklin (St. Petersburg, FL) (Vicarious Liability/Automobile Negligence) obtained Final Summary Judgment for Defendant Crestline Hotels & Resorts, LLC, d/b/a Hilton Singer Island Ocean Front/Palm Beaches against Plaintiff Alicia McKee, individually, and as Personal Representative for the Estate of Paul James McKee in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County Florida before Judge Jamie Goodman. The nine (9) page Order was entered over four (4) months following the hearing on June 10, 2022.

The cause of action arose from a motor vehicle versus pedestrian accident that occurred on December 3, 2017 when a vehicle operated by a banquet manager of Crestline struck two pedestrians, Alicia McKee and Paul McKee. The collision resulted in the death of Paul McKee and serious injury to Alicia McKee. Plaintiffs filed suit against Crestline and banquet manger Anthony Horsford. Plaintiffs alleged Horsford was within the course and scope of his employment with Crestline at the time of the collision. It was undisputed that Horsford was employed as a banquet manager by Crestline on the date of the accident. It was also undisputed that at the time of the collision, Horsford was operating his own personal vehicle on his way home from his place of employment with Crestline.

Under Florida law, an employer is vicariously liable for tort purposes only if: “(1) the conduct is the kind the employee is hired to perform (2) the conduct occurs substantially within the time and space when it is authorized or required by the work to be performed, and (3) the conduct is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master.” Discovery revealed a call from Horsford’s phone to Crestline close in time to the occurrence of the collision. Plaintiffs alleged that Horsford was using, or attempting to use, his phone for business purposes at the time of the collision thereby placing him in the course and scope of employment. Plaintiffs attempted to establish that Horsford, a salaried banquet manager, was in the course and scope of employment when he placed the call because (1) communicating off the work site was common for Horsford, (2) as a salaried employee in the food and beverage line of work, he was essentially always within the time and space limits authorized by Crestline, and (3) the call was made in furtherance of Crestline’s business interest.

Ultimately, the Court agreed with Defendant’s argument and held there was no summary judgment evidence to support that at the time of the collision Crestline retained any control over Horsford’s behavior. The Court specifically stated in its Order Granting Summary Judgment “Florida law does not hold an employer vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee in using a personal cellular phone to contact his employer while driving his personal vehicle from work to his home.”
Granada Insurance Company v. Gibbons, Robert
Kory Watson and Lori Conklin (St. Petersburg, FL) (Insurance Coverage) in their representation of Auto-Owners Insurance Company, obtained an Order on February 4, 2022 from the Honorable Keith Meyer denying Plaintiff Granada Insurance Company’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment. The Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion came after extensive briefing and two hearings on the Motion.

Granada Insurance Company brought an action against Afterhours Automotive Group, Anthony Cockroft and Robert G. Gibbons for declaratory relief. Gibbons presented a demand for his injuries to Granada after he was allegedly injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident involving Cockroft. At the time of the accident Granada had a contract of commercial auto insurance with Afterhours, employer of Cockroft.

At the time of the accident, Gibbons was operating a motor vehicle owned by his employer Acree Air Conditioning, Inc. Consequently, Auto-Owners’ interest in the outcome of the Declaratory Action is pursuant to its capacity as the underinsured motorist carrier for Robert Gibbons.

Granada argued that Florida law is clear that an insurance broker is an agent of the insured. Auto-Owners successfully distinguished the facts of those cases from the facts in the underlying matter. In particular, Granada placed heavy reliance on the Florida Supreme Court decision of Almerico v. RLI Ins. Co., 716 So. 2d 774 (1998), for authority that where the written application expressly states an agent has no authority to bind there can be no apparent authority because the applicant is put on notice of the express limitation on the agent’s authority. Additionally, Granada submitted three (3) trial court orders granting Summary Judgment in Granada’s favor on the grounds that the driver at issue was not an approved driver under the policy and therefore Granada had no duty to provide coverage.

Auto-Owners made clear the issue to the Court was not an ambiguity with regard to the “approved driver” provision in the policy, nor in the Request to Bind and Application for Insurance submitted by Rothschild on behalf of Afterhours to Granada. The narrow issue was rather whether a reasonable jury could find that Rothschild was an agent of Granada for the purpose of adding a driver to the commercial automobile policy at issue of which Cockroft’s employer, Afterhours, was a named insured.

Ultimately, the Court found that (1) a reasonable finder of fact could conclude that Rothschild was an apparent agent of Granada for the purpose of servicing the policy to add an approved driver and/or (2) a reasonable fact finder could determine that Rothschild was a statutory agent of Granada based on Fla. § 626.342(2).
Dale Hunt v. P.J. Rodriguez d/b/a Chick-Fil-A Naples Center
Ken Amos and Kory Watson (St. Petersburg, FL) (Premises Liability) obtained a directed verdict on September 15, 2021 for Defendant P.J. Rodriguez d/b/a Chick-Fil-A Naples Center (“Defendant”) on the third day of a jury trial in a premises liability case before the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in Collier County Florida before Judge Elizabeth V. Krier. Lori Conklin, Esq., Alec Settle, Esq., Amanda Brennan, Esq., and Alanna Heelan, FRP were also fundamental in the preparation of the case for trial, as well as motion practice before and during trial.

The incident occurred on October 23, 2014, when the Plaintiff was allegedly struck on the head by an aluminum restroom partition headrail which spanned from a wall on one side of the men’s restroom stall to the partition divider near the entry door to the men’s restroom stall. The headrail, which weighed 2.6 pounds, allegedly fell on the side closest to the door once the Plaintiff entered the stall and closed the door–hitting him on top of the head. Plaintiff alleged head, neck, and lower back injury from the incident, including surgery on the neck and the lower back.

Discovery revealed the restroom partition headrail which allegedly fell was installed approximately 6 months before the date of loss by Horizon Construction Company (“Horizon”) with materials, parts, and instructions provided by Clayton Fixture Company (“Clayton”). On August 10, 2017, a proposal for settlement was filed by Defendant to Plaintiff in the amount of $22,500. Horizon and Clayton were subsequently named as Co-Defendants in the case. The case was arbitrated on July 21, 2020, with an adverse decision to Defendant, Horizon, and Clayton rendered on September 21, 2020. A judgment was entered in accordance with the arbitration award as to Clayton. Defendant and Horizon moved for a trial de novo. Horizon reached a confidential settlement with Plaintiff before trial.

Prior to trial, Plaintiff’s expert, Chris Zimmerman, testified in his discovery deposition that Defendant failed to maintain the men’s restroom stall partition in a reasonably safe condition because the aluminum headrail allegedly fell and struck the Plaintiff. Mr. Zimmerman did not offer any opinions as to what PJ Rodriguez specifically failed to do or should have done to maintain the fixed restroom partition headrail structure during the period of approximately six months before its alleged failure. Mr. Zimmerman did not suggest that the screws should have been tightened or inspected with any specific frequency, or that any parts needed to be inspected, replaced, or lubricated over time. Mr. Zimmerman provided an opinion on an ultimate issue in the case, that Defendant failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, purportedly in violation of Florida building codes, without any facts or data, or any reliable methodology. Mr. Zimmerman’s opinion was that the restroom partition headrail fell, and because it fell, Defendant must not have maintained it properly. Mr. Zimmerman did not provide a methodology for his opinion as to Defendant’s failure to maintain the restroom partition. Defendant filed a Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Chris Zimmerman specifically with regard to these opinions. In response, Plaintiff withdrew expert witness Chris Zimmerman before trial. Plaintiff also withdrew the low back injury claim before trial.

At trial, Plaintiff and his wife both testified that they frequented the Chick-Fil-A restaurant 2-3 times per month in the 6 months leading up to the incident, and they never observed, experienced, or heard of any problems in the men’s or women’s restrooms. There was no evidence of any complaints by customers, or employees of Defendant, regarding any problems or concerns with the restroom stall partitions prior to the incident. Plaintiff read the testimony of a former employee at the restaurant who testified that after the incident, he believed he found one of the two screws securing the restroom partition headrail where it allegedly fell, and that other screws were thereafter discovered to be loose.

After two full days of trial and the Plaintiff rested, the Court found Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the elements of his case in chief and impermissibly attempted to prove the elements of his case through the stacking of inferences. Specifically, the Court held Plaintiff failed to present any evidence establishing actual or constructive knowledge on behalf of Defendant of any dangerous condition, or any failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, as to present an issue of fact for the jury on breach of Defendant’s duty of care. The Court found the Plaintiff’s following evidence was not instructive as to the condition before or at the time of the incident:
1. An employee of Defendant identified loose screws in the women’s restroom after the incident;
2. One of two screws were found on the men’s restroom floor after the incident;
3. An employee of Defendant found other screws loose in the men’s restroom on the subject “rod” after the incident;
4. Plaintiff visited the subject premises approximately three months after the incident and took photographs purporting to show a hole missing a screw;
5. An employee of Defendant inspected the women’s restroom sometime following the incident in the men’s restroom and “shook” the restroom to determine whether anything was “loose”; and
6. An employee of Defendant testified that he determined after the incident some of the original screws used in the construction were loose.
Accordingly, the Court directed a verdict for the Defendant finding there was no evidence that Defendant breached the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition or failed to warn or make safe conditions Defendant knew of or should have known of through reasonable care. Defendant is considering options including pursuit of attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the defense of the case over 4 years after the filing of the proposal for settlement.
Benjamin Press v. NPC International, Inc.
William Gula, Esq., Kory Watson, Esq., and Ken Amos, Esq. (St. Petersburg, FL) (Premises Liability) secured a defense verdict for the largest Pizza Hut franchisee in the world, NPC International, Inc., from a Pasco County, Florida jury. Plaintiff, Benjamin Press, represented by Chase Florin, Esq. and Luca Esposito, Esq. of Florida Roebig, claimed NPC was negligent in failing to maintain and/or warn of a dangerous condition involving a door closer in the front entry way to the restaurant. Plaintiff testified he was struck in the head by the door closer while exiting the restaurant. Plaintiff’s key eyewitness, Duane Scranton, was a former employee who testified that he observed the door closer rattling for weeks before the incident, warned management that it was going to fall and injure a customer, and actually witnessed the Plaintiff get struck in the head by the door closer when it fell as Plaintiff walked through the front door. There were no other eyewitnesses to the incident, and there was no factual dispute that the door closer fell and struck the Plaintiff. A former manager, Michelle Wiseman, and current area supervisor for NPC, Randy Harris, both testified that there were no prior issues with the door closer and there was no report by Duane Scranton to management about the condition of the door closer. Plaintiff’s counsel argued NPC was accountable because there was no dispute the door closer fell and struck the Plaintiff, and NPC admitted fault if its employee knew of a problem with the door closer and failed to lock the door or put up a sign to prevent its use. William Gula, Esq. argued that Duane Scranton was not credible, and Plaintiff’s theory of negligence would place an unreasonable burden on NPC to tighten every screw on its premises every single day. The trial was bifurcated for liability to be tried in phase one, and damages to be tried in phase two. Plaintiff’s alleged damages in the second phase of the trial would have included a cervical fusion and total medical bills in excess of one hundred seventy thousand dollars ($170,000.00).
Kandy Magnotti v. Lakewood Ranch Trampoline Sports Center LLC
Ken Amos and Kory Watson (St. Petersburg, FL) (Premises Liability) obtained a summary judgment in the case Kandy Magnotti v. Lakewood Ranch Trampoline Sports Center LLC d/b/a Jumpin’ Fun Sports and Brett Morrow.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit based on allegations that she was injured after she was struck in the head by a basketball while standing in an observation area of the indoor trampoline sports center. Plaintiff complained the Defendants were negligent in the design and operation of a trampoline basketball dunk pit near an observation area. Plaintiff alleged the safety netting was not high enough to prevent basketballs from bouncing out of the basketball dunk pit area. Plaintiff allegedly suffered a concussion and a cervical spine injury causing numbness and tingling down her right arm, for which she was recommended to undergo a three level anterior discectomy with interbody fusion and plate and screw stabilization.

Prior to entering the trampoline sports center, Plaintiff was required to complete a liability waiver. Defendants produced the electronic waiver printout sheet containing Plaintiff’s birthdate and driver’s license number as evidence of Plaintiff’s acceptance of the terms of the liability waiver prior to her injury. Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she did not recall or remember the liability waiver whatsoever. Plaintiff did not deny accepting the liability waiver agreement. Defendant owner testified to first hand observations of the Plaintiff working through and accepting the liability waiver on a computer kiosk in the lobby of the trampoline sports center. We moved for summary judgment by arguing there was no issue of material fact that Plaintiff accepted the terms of the liability waiver, and that the terms of the liability waiver were clear and unambiguous requiring enforcement as a matter of law. The judge agreed and granted our motion for summary judgment.

Areas Of Practice

Automobile Liability (PIP/PD/BI/UM)
Civil Litigation
Coverage & Declaratory Judgment Actions
First and Third Party Property and Casualty Claims
General Civil Litigation
General Liability Defense Litigation
Liability Defense
Negligent Security
Premises Liability
Sinkhole Litigation
SIU/Suspicious & Fraudulent Claims
Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Liability
Wrongful Death

Bar & Court Admission

Florida Bar, 2012
U.S. Middle District of Florida

Education

Graduate:
Southern Illinois University School of Law, Juris Doctorate, 2011
Honors:
cum laude, Dean’s List, two semesters, Dean’s Scholarship, Phi Kappa Phi Award, Academic Excellence Award
Undergraduate:
University of Illinois, Bachelor of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2008
Honors:
Graduated with honors, Dean’s List, six semesters, Chi Epsilon National Civil and Environmental Engineering Honor Society

Publications

Kory Watson, Note, Unauthorized Access to Web-based E-mail: Recovery Under the Stored Communications Act After Van Alstyne v. Electronic Scriptorium Ltd., 560 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2009), 35 S. ILL. U. L.J. 543 (2011).
Kory Watson, Comment, Fill Material Pollution Under the Clean Water Act: A Need for Legislative Change, 35 S. ILL. U. L.J. 335 (2011).

Memberships

American Bar Association

Kory R. Watson has been with Vernis & Bowling of the Gulf Coast since July of 2013. Kory was born in Springfield, Illinois. In 2008, he graduated with honors from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) with a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering. While at UIUC, Kory was President of the Undergraduate Patent Law Society and Treasurer of the Chi Epsilon National Civil and Environmental Engineering Honor Society.

Kory then attended Southern Illinois University School of Law in Carbondale, Illinois. After his first year, he was accepted as a member of the Southern Illinois University Law Journal and his work was chosen twice for publication. Kory also served as Vice Justice for the Stephen A. Douglas Chapter of the Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity and as Legal Research Assistant to Professor Patricia McCubbin. He graduated cum laude from Southern Illinois University School of Law obtaining his Juris Doctorate in 2011. Academic achievements include: Dean’s List, Phi Kappa Phi Award, Academic Excellence Award, and Dean’s Scholarship.

After graduation, Kory entered private practice where he focused on civil litigation in Tampa, Florida, and assisted in the litigation of numerous personal injury cases. In July of 2013, Kory joined Vernis & Bowling of the Gulf Coast, then located in Clearwater, Florida. The Clearwater office was later relocated to St. Petersburg in January of 2015. When Kory is not working he enjoys fishing, wakeboarding, cooking, and watching his favorite sports teams.

Footer