Buell & Elligett, P.A.

3003 W. Azeele Street | Suite 100 | Tampa, Florida 33609
(813) 874-2600 Free Initial Phone Consultation

B&E Recent Results

Amy Farrior and Tom Elligett prevailed in an appeal by the Department of Transportation on an order denying the taking sought by the DOT, where the trial court found the DOT had not condemned a temporary construction easement necessary for the taking in Dept. of Transportation v. Prescott, 185 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (per curiam affirmed).

Mark Buell settled an eminent domain action against the State of Florida on behalf of a shopping center owner for $3 million. The shopping center, located in Central Florida, was adversely effected by a road widening. As part of the settlement, the firm was able to negotiate changes to the proposed construction plans that mitigated the effect of the taking on access to the shopping center. The initial offer from the state was $1,153,200.

Tom Elligett represented the insured in the Eleventh Circuit's affirmance of the bad faith verdict in favor of the insured in Diperna v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., Fed. Appx. , 2015 WL 10944345 (11th Cir. 2015).

Tom Elligett obtained the reversal of a summary judgment against an insured who had filed suit after the insurer invoked neutral evaluation in Curtis v Tower Hill, 154 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). The opinion also rejected the insurer's argument that the loss payment provision of the policy rendered their suit premature when they sought more than the insurer offered to stabilize and repair the property.

Mark Buell and Tom Elligett tried a five day eminent domain jury trial for CVS Pharmacy in Collier County, Florida. The store was adversely impacted by a road widening. After hearing extensive engineering, accounting, and other expert testimony, the jury awarded $1,933,000 dollars in business damages to CVS.

Mark Buell represented a client who was sexually assaulted outside an Ybor City nightclub. On behalf of the client, the firm sued the club and its landlord, whose insurance carriers asserted various policy exclusions. Both carriers ultimately tendered their policy limits. The firm also represented the client in the federal coverage action brought by one of the carriers, which then agreed to pay its limits.