Cautionary Warning Concerning Excusable Neglect After Entry of an Arbitration Award

By Douglas M. Cohen

In Hanniford v United Servs. Auto. Assn., 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 5783 (Dist Ct App July 30, 2025, No. 1D2024-0196), the insured plaintiffs’ home was damaged by Hurricane Sally. The plaintiffs retained a law firm (“Plaintiffs’ firm”) to represent them and bring a lawsuit against the defendant insurer. Non-binding arbitration was mandated, and the arbitrator issued an award giving the plaintiffs 20 days to move for a trial if they did not accept the award. Plaintiffs’ firm, disagreeing with the arbitration award, did not timely file a motion for trial, despite multiple attempts by the defendant to contact Plaintiffs’ firm about the arbitration award. Also, although the responsible attorney of the plaintiffs’ case changed on three occasions, Plaintiffs’ firm did not update the e-filing portal and did not check the court docket to timely move for trial. Plaintiffs’ firm instead filed a late motion to vacate the arbitration award, claiming excusable neglect due to attorney transition and calendaring failures. The trial court ultimately entered a final judgment in the amount of the arbitration award and subsequently denied the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate.

In assessing whether Plaintiffs’ firm’s failure to timely move for trial after the arbitration award, the court found that the law firm’s failure was not excusable neglect for several reasons: The failure was not a clerical or secretarial error but rather attorney inaction before an important deadline. Two attorneys with the plaintiffs’ firm chose inaction and ignored communications from opposing counsel. The firm failed to follow court instructions for filing notice of appearance and updating the e-filing portal when attorneys changed. Unlike cases where excusable neglect was found due to clerical staff errors, this case involved attorney malfeasance. The firm provided no evidence of checking the court docket, which would have revealed the deadline.

On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal recognized that the existence of excusable neglect is inherently fact-intensive, and there is no single controlling legal definition of it. Cases involving clerical errors or technological failures beyond an attorney’s control have more often produced a finding of excusable neglect than have mistakes, oversights or intentional inaction within an attorney’s control. Courts are also less forgiving when attorneys are to blame, and rightly so, given the attorney’s professional and ethical obligations and their higher level of control. Here, and distinguishing this case from others, the court found that Plaintiffs’ firm exhibited a clear case of attorney misfeasance. Plaintiffs’ firm made no effort to do any of these things [monitoring], reflecting an overall pattern of inaction and disengagement. Accordingly, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s final judgment in the amount of the arbitration award.