Grovin Farms, LLC v. Intercounty Engineering, Inc., Arch Insurance Company and the Gray Insurance Company
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledSeptember 4, 2026
Docket5D2025-2863
StatusPublished
๐ฐ News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2025-2863
LT Case No. 2022-10384-CIDL
____________________________
GROVIN FARMS, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
INTERCOUNTY ENGINEERING,
INC., ARCH INSURANCE
COMPANY, and THE GRAY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellees.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County.
Randell H. Rowe, III, Judge.
Grant Van Aman, of Van Aman Law, PLLC, Tampa, for
Appellant.
Mike Piscitelli, Joseph W. Lawrence, II, and Christina Strandell,
of VLP Copenhaver Espino, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellees
Intercounty Engineering, Inc. and Arch Insurance Company.
No Appearance for Remaining Appellee.
September 4, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Bolick v. Sperry, 82 So. 2d 374, 376 (Fla.
1955) (โUnder our system of procedure the burden is always upon
the appellant to make reversible error clearly appear.โ); Ford
Motor Co. v. Hetsler, No. 5D2024-2368, 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1582b,
2026 WL 2207050, at *8 (Fla. 5th DCA July 31, 2026) (โTo carry
its burden, an appellant must, at a minimum, adequately brief the
important issues along the decisional path so the court is not left
to do the lionโs share of the work. . . . If the gaps left by an initial
brief would require the court to rebrief the appeal, the argument
is insufficient, and we will affirm on that basis.โ (citation
modified)).
JAY, C.J., and EISNAUGLE and SOUD, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
2