Fla. Stat. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the School Board intends to avail itself of the benefits of §768.28 and of other statutes and common law governing sovereign immunity to the fullest extent possible. However, in no event will the School Board's liability under this provision exceed the sum of the lesser of the following: (a) the amount paid by the School Board to Contractor or (b) the amounts identified as statutory limits pursuant to §768.28, Fla. Stat. if applicable. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to inure to the benefit of any third party for the purpose of allowing any claim which would otherwise be barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity or by operation of law.
Fla. STAT. § 558.0035 NOTICE
Fla. Stat. §790.25(5) authorizes people 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon in a private conveyance for self defense purposes if the weapon is securely encased or not readily accessible for immediate use.
Fla. Jur. 2d Mortgages section 1 (1982). When two mortgage loans made by different borrowers are cross-collateralized, the Department treats each mortgage as securing not only its own primary obligation, but a contingent obligation of the owner of the mortgaged property guaranteeing the cross-collateralized obligation. Each mortgage is taxable on the aggregate of the obligations secured. If a mortgage contains a specific limitation on recovery, that mortgage cannot be subject to documentary stamp tax in excess of the limited amount, provided, a limitation cannot be used to circumvent or reduce documentary stamp tax on direct obligations secured by the mortgage which are executed in Florida.
Fla. Stat., and is contingent upon the Recipient's acceptance of the rights of the Division under Paragraph (24) of this Agreement. The amount which may be advanced may not exceed the expected cash needs of the Recipient within the first three (3) months of the contract term For a federally funded contract. any advance payment is also subject to federal OMB Circulars X-00, X-000, X- 000 and the Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990. All advances are required to be held in an interest-bearing account. If an advance payment is requested. the budget data on which the request is based and a justification statement shall be included in this Agreement as Attachment E. Attachment "E will specify the amount of advance payment needed and provide an explanation of the necessity for and proposed use of these funds. No advance shall be accepted for processing if a reimbursement has been paid prior to the submittal of a request for advanced payment.
Fla. Stat., or to serve as a waiver of the Lessee’s sovereign immunity. Lessee, as authorized by statute, is self-insured, and maintains a self-insurance fund, for tort liability up to the maximum dollar amounts for which sovereign immunity has been waived by statute and maintains excess insurance coverage for such amounts as may be required by settlement agreement or imposed by legislative act. Lessor requires no further liability insurance. Lessee shall, at its own expense, procure and maintain continuously in effect during the Lease Term all-risk casualty and property insurance, in an amount equal to the greater of the full replacement cost of the Equipment or the applicable Purchase Price. Such insurance coverage may be a part of the Lessee’s total casualty and property insurance program and need not be a separate policy.
Fla. Stat. Any indemnification or agreement to defend or hold harmless by City specified in the Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of City's sovereign immunity, and shall be limited to such indemnification and liability limits consistent with the requirements of Section 768.28, Fla. Stat. and subject to the procedural requirements set forth therein. Any other purported indemnification by City in the Agreement in derogation hereof shall be void and of no force or effect.
Fla. Stat. If the Program Manager has questions regarding the application of Ch. 119, Florida Statutes to the Program Manager’s duty to provide public records relating to this Contract, they must contact the Public Records Management Coordinator for the School District at Xxxxxxxxxxxxx@XxxxXxxxxXxxxxx.xxx.
Fla. Weekly D 2268 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2003).27 The husband and guardian of a nursing home resident filed a claim against Manor Care, the nursing home, for deprivation of the resident's rights as set forth in sections 400.022 and 400.023, Florida Statutes (2001). The Court refused to uphold arbitration agreement on substantive and procedural unconscionable. Regarding the first, whether the agreement was substantively unconscionable, the court found: “This arbitration agreement would not vindicate the resident's statutory rights in any respect. In fact, the agreement would specifically deprive the resident of remedies that the legislature felt were important to the reduction of elder abuse in nursing homes. While it was the intent of the remedial policies of the legislation to permit the award of punitive damages for certain conduct, the agreement prevented the arbiters from awarding such damages. Nor could the arbiters award attorney's fees to the successful resident even though the ability to make such an award was intended by the legislature. For instance, according to [**10] the allegations of the complaint, Xxxxxxxxx was only in the nursing home for thirty days but developed bed sores and received grossly substandard care. Given her advanced age, compensatory damages may be small. Under the arbitration agreement, in order to vindicate her rights, she would have to pay for an attorney herself, the cost of which may prevent her from pursuing a rightful claim. Because the arbitration agreement fails to allow the arbiter to award either attorney's fees or punitive damages, it does not permit the nursing home resident to vindicate her statutory rights. Therefore, the agreement is unenforceable. See Flyer Printing, 805 So. 2d at 831. Because of the limitations contained in the arbitration agreement, it takes away any effective enforcement of the statutory rights of the resident.” As to procedural unconscionability, it is true that the arbitration agreement was not 'hidden in the fine print.' It was presented to Xxxxxxxx as simply another document required to be signed as part of the admission process. Both Xxxxxxxx and his wife are elderly, and while Xxxxxxxx owned his own business, there was no showing that he had legal training to understand the rights he was signing away for his wife. Moreover, he was being asked to sign these documents after his wife was already admitted to the nursing home without being told that his failure to sign them would not a...
